Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EGHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

(King's Consent signified); Bill read the Third time, and passed.

WHITSTABLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Welsh Family Guide

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the Minister of National Insurance what steps he proposes to take to disseminate copies of the Welsh handbook on the National Insurance Acts prepared by his Department.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Copies of the Welsh Family Guide have been sent to all post offices, to the local offices of my Department in Wales and also to the offices of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, the Assistance Board and citizens advice bureaux. Copies are also available at meetings held throughout Wales to explain the new scheme. If my hon. Friend knows of any difficulty in obtaining copies perhaps he would let me have the details.

Mr. Roberts: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask

whether he is prepared to consider supplying copies of this handbook to the education authorities in Wales for distribution to the primary and secondary schools?

Mr. Griffiths: I shall be quite prepared to consider that suggestion.

Mr. Peter Freeman: Can the Minister say how many of these copies have been printed in Welsh?

Mr. Griffiths: Not without notice.

Tuberculosis Patients

Dr. Santo Jeger: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that it is proposed after 5th July to require tuberculosis patients to draw their allowances from post offices; and whether, in view of the recognised necessity for maintaining close contact between these people and their local tuberculosis care committees and the undesirability of asking tuberculosis patients to stand in queues with the general public, he will make it possible for them to receive their payments through the care committees.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Assistance under the National Assistance Act to persons undergoing treatment for tuberculosis will in the great majority of cases be paid in supplementation of sickness benefit under the National Insurance Act which is normally payable by orders cashable at a post office. It is not essential for the patient to attend personally at the post office. If he signs the order he can authorise someone else to cash it on his behalf.

Dr. Jeger: Has the right hon. Gentleman given adequate consideration to the other points in my Question, particularly the point about maintaining contact between the patients and the care committees?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir, but this matter falls to be considered by the Assistance Board as one of administration. They have received a very representative deputation with whom these problems were discussed. If the hon. Member would like to discuss the matter further with me, I should be happy to do so.

Commander Noble: Can the Minister give an assurance that his first answer will be widely circulated, because some people do not know about this?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

Retirement and Widows' Pensions

Mr. Tiffany: asked the Minister of National Insurance what will be the position, after 5th July, of widows aged 55–60 years of age who at present are in receipt of a 10s. pension.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As my hon. Friend explained in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) on 8th June, such widow pensioners, if they do not qualify for increased widows' pensions from 5th July, 1948, by reason of having children or being incapable of self-support, will be liable to contribute under the new National Insurance scheme in their appropriate class. For retirement pension purposes they will be given an initial credit of contributions from their 55th birthday to 5th July, 1948, and the ordinary contribution conditions will be modified in their favour so that they can qualify from age 60 for the full rate of retirement pension by paying contributions for the balance of the period from 5th July, 1948, to their 60th birthday. I am arranging for an explanatory letter to be issued shortly to each widow pensioner affected by these special arrangements.

Mr. Tiffany: While recognising that the credits give some concession, is it not true nevertheless that there is some inequality between the widow who is 60 before 5th July and the widow who becomes 60 after 5th July; and in view of this fact, cannot the right hon. Gentleman, in his customary humane manner, go a little further in this matter?

Mr. Griffiths: We have provided pensions for widows who were 60 in October, 1946, and for those who reach 60 before 5th July. By the terms of the Act, women of 60 and over on 5th July cannot come into the scheme. There will probably be some inequality, but every effort is being made to reduce it to the lowest possible quota.

Miss Bacon: Is the Minister aware that many of these widows are in receipt of only 10s. a week and are living with sons and daughters, and does he not realise that it will be an added hardship to the sons and daughters to pay 3s. 8d. a week? Will he not consider, in cases of non-employed widows aged 50 to 60, waiving the contributions?

Mr. Griffiths: We have provided that if these widows are incapable of self-support, their pension is immediately raised to 26s. The others will have to contribute for about six months only, and they will then get the full pension. I wish that it had been possible to do more within the limits of the insurance scheme, but that is not possible.

Mr. Chetwynd: In cases where hardship does arise, can the widow apply to the Assistance Board for a supplementary pension to meet the contribution?

Mr. Griffiths: As from 5th July, they will be able to apply for national assistance. If the hon. Member will look at the scale, he will see that we have made provision for that.

Mr. George Thomas: Will those widows who are incapable of working have to submit to a medical examination by officers of the Minister's Department?

Mr. Griffiths: No. We have invited all those widows to submit their applications, and at the same time to submit a report by their own doctor that will satisfy us and enable us to pay the pension.

Miss Bacon: asked the Minister of National Insurance how far under the new scheme of National Insurance the local offices of his Department will have responsibility for claims to retirement and widows' pensions; and to what extent pensioners and persons desiring to claim these pensions will still deal with the Assistance Board.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As from 5th July next claims for retirement and widows' contributory pensions should be addressed to the local office of the Ministry of National Insurance, which will handle all the local work in connection with them. The Assistance Board, whose help has been invaluable in the previous administration of the scheme, have undertaken to clear up belated claims from existing retirement pensioners with wives under age 60 who may be entitled, from 5th July, to increase of their pensions on that account. A large number of such claims are still outstanding and I would urge the pensioners concerned to make them without further delay. Claims for noncontributory old age pensions should be addressed to the Assistance Board as hitherto.

International Reciprocal Agreements

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of National Insurance the extent to which he has secured reciprocal arrangements with European countries in respect of social insurance; and whether he intends to seek similar arrangements with other European and non-European countries.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I have great pleasure in informing the House that I signed a reciprocal agreement with the French Minister of Labour and Social Security on Friday last, 11th June. Negotiations are now proceeding with Eire, and there have been discussions with Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I hope to be in a position to conclude reciprocal agreements covering certain parts of the social security field with some of these countries at a fairly early date, and also to approach the Governments of some other countries with whom a basis for reciprocity in social insurance may be found.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware of the great appreciation felt in all parts of the House at this excellent extension of this principle, but could he say when we shall be able to have some particulars regarding this scheme; and will it be discussed in the House, or otherwise?

Mr. Griffiths: I will see that a statement on the agreement with France, covering the points upon which we have arrived at reciprocal arrangements, is made as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Sir Godfrey Ince (Statement)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour if the statement in Kansas City on 6th June by Sir Godfrey Ince, Permanent Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Labour, that unless America continued to send aid to Britain we should go bankrupt and there would be a crash, was made on his behalf.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I presume that the hon. Member is referring to a report in "Kansas City Star" of 3rd June of a statement made by Sir Godfrey Ince. I am informed that this statement, which was made in reply to

questions, was to the effect that at present we cannot close the dollar gap and if we do not receive Marshall Aid we shall be in "a serious economic plight." This is a statement of fact that has been made many times, and to which I can see no possible objection.

Mr. Osborne: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the report appeared in "The Times"; and would it not have been better to have given this report at Scarborough and to the T.U.C., instead of sending a man to Kansas City to make a statement in that way?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should have thought that even the hon. Member would have recognised the statement quoted in "The Times" or the other paper as not being quite Civil Service standard. It is really a very vigorous American interpretation of what was said.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Could the Parliamentary Secretary say what this officer was doing in Kansas City?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Certainly. He was on his way to the I.L.O. Conference, which began yesterday.

West Indians and Africans

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour how many men of East and West African and West Indian origin are registered as unemployed in the City of Manchester at the nearest convenient date; and what were the comparable figures for 1945, 1946 and 1947.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Mr. Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a considerable number of unemployed coloured men in the City of Manchester; and, in view of the difficulty they are facing in securing employment, will he do everything possible to dissuade these irresponsible people who are sending shiploads of West Indians to this country without there being any jobs here waiting for them?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The latter part of the supplementary question will be dealt with in answer to the next Question on the Order Paper. On the first part, our difficulty is not in finding these men jobs but in finding them private billets.


Private billeting raises a matter of very great social consequence, and embarrasses us very greatly indeed in placing these men.

Mr. McCorquodale: asked the Minister of Labour if he has any further statement to make on the circumstances surrounding the journey of 400 West Indians to this country to seek employment.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Labour if he has been able to ascertain how many of the 400 West Indians, who are on their way to this country in search of work, are skilled workers and in what trades; on what date their ship is due to arrive; and what provision is being made for their accommodation on arrival.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that these men are coming to Great Britain at their own expense and of their own initiative. I cannot say how many of them are skilled workers until they have registered at an employment exchange, where their qualifications and experience can be assessed. I understand that the ship is due on 22nd June. Provision of accommodation for persons who arrive in Great Britain in these circumstances is not a matter for my Department.

Mr. McCorquodale: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it would be very much better if these men were interviewed before they left, and proper arrangements made for them by the time they arrived?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman has had great experience at the Ministry of Labour and he will know how extremely difficult it is if even our own people are transferred about this country, and it now falls upon the Ministry of Labour to find them accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Ministry has accepted that responsibility only for any worker it drafts, directs, or finds work for in any part of the country. If we are now to be asked to do this for these men, we are being asked to do something for them which we have refused to do for our own people.

Mr. McCorquodale: When these men do arrive, does the Parliamentary Secretary expect full co-operation from the trade unions, employers and others in

assembling them into mines, transport and other occupations where they might be of use?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That raises a difficulty. I hope the House will excuse these lengthy answers to supplementary questions. Only last week we had to stop a trainload of voluntary workers coming to work in the mines of this country because we had not the accommodation, which makes the position still worse. No matter what co-operation we may have from the employers and trade unions, our great problem will be accommodation.

Mr. Driberg: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the reference to accommodation was only included in the Question because last week his right hon. Friend, answering a Question on this subject, did say that accommodation would have to be found for these men; and, although obviously it is impossible to prevent British subjects who choose to pay their own way from moving from one part of the British Empire to another, does the Parliamentary Secretary not recognise that a very serious problem does arise here, and will he do his utmost, in conjunction with the Colonial Office Welfare Department, for these men?

Mr. Ness Edwards: We are prepared to do all we possibly can, but I should make it quite clear that we can do no more for these men than we do for our own men in this matter. We will do no more and no less. That is the position.

Mr. Gammans: As these people are British subjects, will not the Parliamentary Secretary arrange to have this ship met, and some arrangement made other than just decanting them into London; and can he assure the House that there is no colour prejudice in any of the trade unions for the trades in which these people might seek employment?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I can assure the House that there is no colour prejudice at all with regard to their employment. The great difficulty is in getting these people into private billets. If our people will not take them, we are up against a real difficulty.

Mr. Gammans: Will not the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?

Dining-Car Staff, British Railways

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement about the strike of dining-car staff on the Southern Division of British Railways on 7th June.

Mr. Ness Edwards: According to my information, there was no such strike.

Mr. Keeling: But is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that in one of the principal trains to Waterloo on this day, the dining-car had no cooks, no waiters and no food?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that this train was run in two parts, and, as happens very often on other systems, the second part of the train had no dining-car staff; but there was no strike at all.

Mr. Keeling: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether in the old days of private ownership these ghost dining-cars ran?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Certainly, it happened regularly.

Railway Workers (Women)

Colonel Clarke: asked the Minister of Labour how many women are at present engaged in manual work on the railway track systems; and how many were similarly engaged in 1938.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The precise information requested is not available, but according to the figures published by the British Transport Commission there were, at 21st March, 162 women employed in the conciliation grades of the Civil Engineering Department.

Colonel Clarke: Is the Minister aware that many people are shocked at women undertaking this hard and dangerous work, and is it the policy of the Transport Commission to continue employing women on work of this sort?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The women who have voluntarily accepted this employment are entitled to the greatest approbation by Members of this House. However, they are not compelled, and I find that the number who are employed on hard manual work is extremely small, and that women are being transferred to lighter forms of work if they so wish.

Agricultural Workers

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour how many agricultural workers were signing on for benefit at the Employment Exchanges on a regional basis at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Ness Edwards: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Figures are not at present available for any date later than 15th March, when the numbers of unemployed men aged 18 years and over registered at Employment Exchanges in each region for employment as agricultural workers were as follows:


London and South-Eastern Region
130


Eastern Region
614


Southern Region
103


South-Western Region
109


Midlands Region
35


North Midlands Region
112


East and West Ridings Region
117


North-Western Region
116


Northern Region
133


Scotland
278


Wales
96



1,843

Public House Managers (Wages and Holidays)

Mr. John McKay: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there is much unrest and dissatisfaction among the members, managers Section, of the Northern District Licensed Victuallers' Association, over the serious delay in the publishing of the decision of the Catering Wages Board for licensed non-residential establishment managers; and will he explain the present position and make the decision public as soon as possible.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that the Licensed Non-Residential Establishment Wages Board is today sending to all employers concerned its proposals for remuneration and holidays-with-pay for public house managers and club stewards. The Board will consider any representations received regarding these proposals within the next 28 days before it submits its final proposals for the making of a Wages Regulation Order.

European Volunteer Workers

Mr. J. L. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour the number of


European volunteer workers now in Scotland; the numbers of them employed as land workers and in other occupations, respectively; the average weekly number of days or hours during which they are so employed; and the average weekly payment received by them.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Up to 12th June, 5,495 European volunteer workers had been placed in work in Scotland. 3,858 of these were placed in agriculture, and the remainder in other occupations. Hours of work and wages are the same as for British workers.

Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong feeling existing in certain districts against these Europeans on account of the small amount of work supposed to be done by them, and will he examine the position?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid that this is one of the consequences of the variable weather in Scotland as against the weather in England. It is difficult to plan intakes into an industry which depends so much on the weather.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does the right hon. Member realise that he has not answered the Question. The Question asks the number of European voluntary workers now in Scotland, and the figure he gave was the number who were placed in work? Can he say how many there are in Scotland?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have given the number who are placed in agriculture in Scotland, and in that sense I think I have answered the Question completely.

Mr. Scollan: Does the figure also include those Polish soldiers who were stationed in Scotland and volunteered for this class of work?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. It refers to the European voluntary workers.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Member aware that the weather in Scotland this year has been just as good on the average as in England, and why does he mention that particularly?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Because it seems that in Scotland they have had a very good season so far, and that the labour has been used much more effectively, with the result that not quite so much labour as was first thought has been wanted.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider employing these men on other work while they are waiting for employment on the land?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Those arrangements are in hand.

Mr. Vane: When the Parliamentary Secretary uses the word "agriculture," does it include horticulture and forestry?

Mr. Ness Edwards: One usually uses the word in that sense.

European Recovery Programme

Mr. Pritt: asked the Minister of Labour what is his estimate of the amount of unemployment there would be in this country in the absence of the aid to be given by the European Recovery Programme; in what trades it would mainly prevail; what employment he estimates will actually be created by that programme; and in what trades.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It is not possible to make any such statistical estimates, but, as pointed out in the foreword, and in paragraphs 50, 193 and 245 of the Economic Survey for 1948, there is no doubt that in the absence of Marshall Aid, widespread unemployment would develop.

Mr. Pritt: While accepting the impossibility of making any assessment, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to persuade the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to give up blandly asserting in this House that the figure is two million?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sure that my hon. Friend will note what has been said by the hon. and learned Member.

Appointments Department

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Labour the number of Government posts filled through the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour in 1946 and 1947 and to latest available date in 1948, respectively.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The number of Government posts filled by the Technical and Scientific Register of Appointments Department in 1946 was 1,748; in 1947, 941; and in 1948 to 10th May, 301. The records at appointment offices are not kept in such a way as to show separately the


number of persons placed in Government posts, but it is estimated that over 1,000 persons have so far been placed this year.

Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some dissatisfaction among the applicants to the Appointments Department in view of the fact that a large number of Government Departments do not make use of this Department when they desire to fill vacancies?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Other Government Departments are now using the Appointments Department to the fullest degree.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what percentage of applicants have been placed?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Those figures were given by the Minister last week.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Vocational Training

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Minister of Labour whether conscripts who volunteer under the Bounty Scheme for a further three or four years' service are to be treated as eligible for the Further Education and Training Scheme.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Men who volunteered under the Bounty Scheme for a further period of service not exceeding four years will not be debarred on that account from applying for awards under the Further Education and Training Scheme, provided the extended service commenced before 1st January, 1948. Applications from such men will, of course, be subject to the normal conditions of eligibility under the Scheme.

Steeplejacks

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give consideration to the desirability of exempting steeplejacks from military service, in view of the continuous training and experience required by young steeplejacks in order to become proficient and reliable in their specialised calling.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have no power to exempt anyone from his obligations under the National Service Acts, but a young man learning to become a steeplejack may

have his call-up deferred until the completion of his training if the necessary conditions are satisfied.

Mr. Sorensen: If the men express a preference for naval training rather than for military training, will they be accepted into the Navy?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. A man may express a preference, but it is for the Service Department to decide whether they accept him.

Mr. Sorensen: Can my hon. Friend not take into account the fact that men who are training for this sort of work find a certain amount of advantage by going into the Navy rather than into the Army?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This matter has been discussed in the House on many occasions.

University Students

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will revise Administrative Memorandum No. 282, to ensure that boys who wish to enter the university before service with His Majesty's Forces may hear the decision of the University Joint Recruiting Board regarding deferment and that those who fail to obtain deferment may complete the essential pre-university services training to enter the university in October, 1949.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Administrative Memorandum No. 282 deals with the arrangements for the call-up before the end of July, 1948, of boys who have definitely decided to do their military service before going to a university. It would clearly be impracticable to apply these arrangements in the case of boys who seek deferment, since it is not possible to reach decisions about deferment in time to permit of call-up before the end of July. Most universities do not finally decide their acceptances until the results of the Higher School Certificate examination are known at the end of August.

Mr. Lindsay: That is the whole point, that these students are in rather a predicament because they are being asked to make their decision without knowing the essential facts. Is there no way for them to make a decision so that they either go to the university in the autumn, or do their service and have a chance


of getting into the university in 1949? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This memorandum is the result of the request made in this House to give these boys a speedy call-up so that they can be released by October, 1949. I thought we had substantially met the wishes of the House in the matter, but I will certainly look into the other point raised. Unless these boys are called up by July, they cannot hope to start their university careers in October, 1949.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Education (Annual Report, 1947)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Annual Report on Education in Scotland for the year 1947 will be published.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I hope that this Report will be published not later than the beginning of September.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report for 1946 was published so long ago as 16th April, 1947, and that it will be very inconvenient if no more up-to-date information is made available to Scottish Members before we reach the Scottish Estimates?

Highlands and Islands (Advisory Panel)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Highland Panel is to submit its report.

Mr. Woodburn: The Advisory Panel on the Highlands and Islands was not set up as a reporting committee, but as a body which would keep in constant touch with the Departments concerned with administration in the Highlands and Islands and advise me from time to time on specific questions and on the carrying out of concerted plans.

Mr. Macpherson: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to make a report on the progress of the

Panel, and are we not to have a report laid before the House?

Mr. Woodburn: The purpose of the Committee is to advise me on action to be taken. The action speaks for itself when it is taken.

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many committees or groups in addition or subsidiary to the Highland Panel have been set up by him to investigate different aspects of affairs in the Highlands; on what dates they were appointed; what matters they are investigating and when each of them is to conclude its inquiries.

Mr. Woodburn: The Panel is free to set up its own working machinery. At its second meeting on 14th February, 1947, it appointed four working groups to deal with the problems of agriculture and forestry, fisheries, textiles and transport. At its ninth meeting, on 5th March last, a fifth group was appointed to consider the problems of industries and planning in the Highlands. These groups report to the Panel at each of its meetings, and their recommendations, if agreed, are thereupon submitted to me.

Mr. Macpherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the appointments to the Advisory Panel are made by himself, or whether the members are co-opted by the sub-committees? Would he assure the House that there is no undue and unnecessary overlapping?

Mr. Woodburn: The Panel sets up its own committees, and frames their composition. They can depend on my office for every possible assistance. I am satisfied that they will do the work efficiently, and that there will not be any unnecessary overlapping.

Sir William Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the work which he has outlined has been done by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry)?

Mr. Woodburn: The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) covers the whole of Scotland. The two work together, but the Panel is dealing specially with the Highlands and Islands, whose problems are entirely separate.

Commander Galbraith: Has any action Peen taken on the recommendations which have been received from this Panel?

Mr. Woodburn: Quite a number of things have been going on regularly. They have been able to stimulate developments in the Highlands, which are now in process of execution.

Mr. Scollan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the popular impression in Scotland is that the Panel is responsible for investigating all developments in the Highlands, and that many people are looking forward to a report from the Panel? If it is only an advisory body, I think its name might well be changed to "Advisory Committee." Will my right hon. Friend consider that?

Shop Premises (Tenure)

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether there has been a committee set up for Scotland to report on the feasibility of extending the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts to shopkeepers; or if the Lord Chancellor's Committee who are to report on this matter contains any Scottish members.

Mr. Woodburn: The general question of the tenure of shop premises in Scotland was examined recently by a Committee of Inquiry, whose report was published in December, 1947. The terms of reference of the Leasehold Committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor do not extend to Scotland, and there is, accordingly, no Scottish representation.

Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the committee to which he has referred, the Taylor Committee, did not deal with the Rent Restrictions Acts in its terms of reference? Although the Leasehold Committee is applicable to England, they at least have had the perspicacity to inquire into the extension of protection to shopkeepers by the Rent Restrictions Acts. Can my right hon. Friend explain why they do things so much better in England than in Scotland?

Mr. Woodburn: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's last assertion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it would require some proof before it was admitted in Scotland. Any recommendations which the Leasehold Committee makes will be watched with interest by us in Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: What has really happened in this matter? Two

months ago the right hon. Gentleman gave a typically soporific answer, and since then nothing has been done to protect people under the terms of the Taylor Committee.

Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not been in Scotland lately.

Sir T. Moore: I have.

Mr. Woodburn: Quite a number of shops have been requisitioned, and a large number of cases investigated. A great deal has been done which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has evidently not noticed.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the report of the Taylor Committee was unsatisfactory, that no solution of the problem was found, and that the matter is urgent? Will he set up another committee to deal with it, or seek to extend the terms of reference of the Lord Chancellor's Committee so that they can deal with it? Could I have an answer?

Housing

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can give any estimate of the number of houses required in Scotland for the category classed as homeless; and how far he expects to have reached such a target by the end of 1948 and 1949.

Mr. Woodburn: Of the 500,000 new houses estimated at the end of the war to be needed in Scotland about 200,000 were for persons without a home of their own. A total of 51,628 temporary and permanent houses have already been provided under postwar schemes. In present circumstances it is not possible to estimate what additional number will be completed by the end of 1948 and 1949, but the Government's aim is to complete the largest number that the available resources will permit.

Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply is very unsatisfactory? Does he know that his counterpart in England announced that the target of 750,000 houses, stated to be required for the homeless, would be reached by October? Not within years do we appear to be able to reach the target for Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: There is a simple explanation. Scotland started off with ten times worse housing conditions than England. It is easier to solve the English problem than the Scottish problem.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer is not only very unsatisfactory, but also incomplete, since he has not said how many houses are required for the homeless?

Mr. Woodburn: About 200,000 of the houses were for persons without a home of their own. I am not quite clear what the term "homeless" means.

Mrs. Mann: Is Scotland to remain always and forever in a ten times worse position than England?

Mr. Woodburn: I am pleased to say that some leeway is being made up, but it is entirely a question of materials. If they are not there, we cannot build any quicker.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: As there is some doubt about the interpretation of "homeless," should it not be referred to the courts?

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that in years gone by the right hon. Gentleman advised the Scottish people that they could never get their affairs in order until they had more power, will he see that they get more power when he has more power to give them more power?

Government Employees (The Kilt)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions are in force regarding the wearing of the kilt by Government employees in St. Andrew's House and elsewhere.

Mr. Woodburn: There are no instructions regarding the wearing of the kilt by Government employees in St. Andrew's House.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: And elsewhere?

Mr. Woodburn: "Elsewhere" is a wide term. They wear the kilt in the Army and in the streets, and in some parts of the Highlands. I am not quite clear what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means by "elsewhere."

Hon. Members: The courts.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I do not wish to refer to the courts. I mean all Government offices.

Mr. Woodburn: So far as my information goes, there is no prohibition against wearing the kilt in Government offices, although it is appropriate that people should wear the dress which is suitable for the place they are in and I am not sure that kilts are the best dress for office work.

Mrs. Mann: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that under no circumstances will effeminate, knock-kneed men be allowed to wear the kilt?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: As I do not come in that category, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be sure that people do not wear more than one kilt each?

Mr. Woodburn: I cannot guarantee that; I understand that ladies are sometimes accused of wearing more than one kilt.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Disabled Ex-Service Men (Clothing Allowance)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Pensions what is the present extra allowance given to disabled ex-Service men who are receiving a disability pension for clothing; when the allocation was altered; and how many are now receiving the extra allowance.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Buchanan): The present allowances to cover abnormal wear and tear of clothing as a result of the pensioned disablement are £5 a year where one artificial limb, other than a tilting-table limb, is worn and £8 a year where the pensioner wears a tilting-table limb or more than one artificial limb. Up to £ a year is also payable in certain other cases where exceptional wear and tear results from the pensioned disablement. The allowances, originally £3 and £5 a year respectively, were raised to the present rates with effect from 1st February, 1948. Approximately 33,000 pensioners are now receiving a clothing allowance.

Mr. Freeman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these allowances are given automatically; whether each one has


to apply for it on his own merits, and what percentage of disability is allowed to get a full allowance?

Mr. Buchanan: I dealt with this on 1st February when the increases were announced. If a person now has the allowance, there is no need for a new application at all, but obviously if a person wants it for the first time he must make an application for it.

Mr. Freeman: Could my right hon. Friend say what percentage is not receiving it?

Mr. Buchanan: Obviously, I could not say without notice.

Cancer Cases (Pension Applications)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Pensions how many applications for a pension have been refused in respect of ex-Service men suffering from cancer; and will he arrange for all these to be automatically reviewed in the light of the recent judicial decision.

Mr. Buchanan: The number of applications in respect of cancer which have been rejected is estimated to be about 5,500. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 8th June, to which I would add that pensions have been granted in respect of cancer in about 1,000 cases.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend referring to the cases that were granted before the recent judicial decision?

Mr. Buchanan: I answered a Question on this last week and I made it plain to the House that, although the learned judge had arrived at that decision, we were operating that plan before he came to that decision. In the judge's case there was a conflict of facts, but we have been operating it for some time. Where-ever a person suffering from cancer could link that disability up with another disease and it could be proved that that was as a result of war service, my instructions were to exercise the new proposals to the greatest possible extent.

Sir T. Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at one critical moment this disease ceases to be

innocent and becomes malignant, and that that is the time the Ministry's medical officials do not seem able to define? Will the right hon. Gentleman also take the opportunity of having these cases reviewed?

Mr. Buchanan: We may not be doing as much as some hon. Members would like, but compared with anything done in the past we are miles ahead. In the past it used not to be possible to allow cancer applications in any way, and now we are doing it to the extent I have outlined. If my hon. Friends want me to grant pensions without a doctor's certificate, I will soon do it, but none must grumble at the money that has to be found if that is done. As long as I am bound by medical evidence and learned judge's decisions in court, then I must rule out cancer in most cases, but whenever we can link it up to any other circumstance it can be taken that both my officials and myself try to do it in the most kindly and humane way possible.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Already 45 minutes have gone and we have not yet reached Question No. 30. We must get on.

Stump Socks

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will take steps to improve the quality of stump socks required by disabled persons.

Mr. Buchanan: The stump stock supplied by my Department to the war disabled are made of the best quality materials. If the hon. Member has received any complaint about their quality, perhaps he will be good enough to let me have particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Detention Barracks

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the same regulations regarding work before breakfast, drills at the double and time of reveille now operate in all military detention barracks in this country.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): Yes. The two military prisons and detention barracks in this country are governed by the same rules.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that mean that drill at the double as a form of punishment is now forbidden?

Mr. Shinwell: Drill at the double is not a form of punishment under these instructions.

Eritrea (Administration)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on 30th November last at Teramni, the President General of the Pro-Reunion to Ethiopia Party was prevented from appearing before the Four Power Foreign Ministers' Deputies' Inquiry Commission to present his protest to the Commission, on account of police violence to members of his party, including the Venerable Abbot of Enda Abuna Ebranios, the Abbot of Enda Abuna Ionas, the Reverend Father Twelde Mehin and the Reverend Father Fessahaie, who had assembled to give their evidence to the Commission; and whether he will arrange for an impartial tribunal to investigate this and other charges concerning the administration during the Four Power Foreign Ministers' Deputies' Inquiry in Eritrea.

Mr. Shinwell: I was not aware of the facts alleged in the Question, but I have called for a report from the military authorities overseas and I will write to my hon. Friend when it has been received.

Palestine (Convicted Persons)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Jews and Arabs, respectively, who had been convicted in Palestine of murder, attempted murder and assault on any member of His Majesty's Forces and any person in the employment of the Government of Palestine, and for carrying arms or explosives, were taken into custody by the G.O.C. British troops in Palestine on or before 15th May; how many are still in custody under his control; how many it is intended shall be released before their sentence has expired; and if he will issue a written statement showing the offences committed by these persons.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obtaining this information and when it has been received I will write to the hon. Member.

Explosives Depots (Scotland)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to guard or dispose of explosive clumps in the West of Scotland.

Mr. Shinwell: Civilian watchmen, military guards and motor cycle patrols are on duty at the depot to which my hon. Friend is referring. Guards are augmented at weekends. The ammunition is being disposed of as fast as possible.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that at a recent trial in Scotland statements were made that grenades, bombs and land mines were being freely stolen from dumps all over Scotland, and will he take precautions in the future to prevent that happening?

Mr. Shinwell: I am aware of what occurred recently. I regret it, but the fact is that unless we are able to provide manpower and transport to remove these dumps, many of them must remain. However, we are proceeding with the work as expeditiously as possible.

Flat, Kensington (War Office Use)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War for what purposes the War Office used the flat at 19, Rugby Mansions, Bishop Kings Road, Kensington; what were the nature of the duties of Mrs. Wiggins there; and if she is still in the employment of the War Office.

Mr. Shinwell: I understand that this fiat was used recently for the temporary accommodation of Colonel Tasoev while he was here as a refugee. Mrs. Wiggins was employed as a housekeeper. She is still employed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister say whether the statements in the Press on 7th June are accurate? They were to the effect that this six-roomed flat was let to the Military Intelligence Department of the War Office by a judge, and that the rent was paid to the judge. Can the right hon. Gentleman say why these premises were vacated so suddenly?

Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid I have not got any further information on this matter, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied to a question on this point.

Mr. Bramall: As my right hon. Friend said that Mrs. Wiggins is still employed as a housekeeper, can he say whose house she is keeping at the moment?

Mr. Shinwell: I have just replied to that question—that Mrs. Wiggins was employed as housekeeper and she is still employed.

Mr. Pritt: Can my right hon. Friend say how many other foreign political or similar refugees were accommodated in that flat?

Mr. Shinwell: If my hon. and learned Friend puts a question down, I will try to furnish the answer.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where Mrs. Wiggins is now?

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY (DRILL HALLS)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking, in co-operation with the Ministry of Works and the local authorities, to implement the recent announcement by the C.I.G.S. that each Territorial drill hall is to be the best social club in its district.

Mr. Shinwell: It is the responsibility of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations to provide furniture and amenities for the Territorial Army; they are given an annual grant for this purpose. Associations include representatives of local authorities. Commanding Officers are paying close attention to the social side of the Territorial Army. My Department keeps in constant touch with the Ministry of Works, who are giving help where they can.

Brigadier Head: Is the Secretary of State aware that furniture without accommodation is not much use, that the accommodation situation at the present time is very serious indeed, and that all that the Army has had so far from the Secretary of State for War appears to be a lot of non-military pronouncements which have proved to be political boomerangs.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member is probably not aware that we are in the closest possible touch with the T.A. Associations, and that we are trying to comply with all the requests they make

to us. The accommodation problem is very difficult indeed, but it is not an original problem; it has been there for many years.

Mr. Driberg: Is it, in fact, possible to fulfil these hopes at all within the next few years without a considerable diversion of labour and materials?

Mr. Shinwell: We think we are making progress, and I think we will make more progress.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR (ROUMANIAN VOLKSDEUTSCHE)

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Roumanian Volksdeutsche remain in this country as prisoners of war; and whether, as these men have no homes in Germany and cannot return to Roumania, he will arrange for them to be offered civilian status for work in this country.

Mr. Shinwell: Fifty-five remain in this country as prisoners of war. They have all applied to stay here as civilians. Thirty-eight have been accepted and the applications of the rest are still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME AFFAIRS SURVEY

Mr. Gammans: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware that in the Home Affairs Survey issued by the Central Office of Information, of 25th May, 1948, 17½ pages are devoted to the Labour Party Conference and the Conference is advertised on the contents page in heavy black type, whilst in the issue of the survey of 7th October, 1947, only 1¼ pages are devoted to the Conservative Party Conference and the Conference is not mentioned at all on the contents page; and what is the explanation of this apparent political bias.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The explanation is simple and I am glad to give it. If the hon. Member will compare the material, including the Industrial Charter, relating to the two Party Conferences in 1947, and bear in mind that one lasts twice as long as the other, he


will find they were fairly evenly treated. This year it was decided to give more extensive reports of British political events, and in consequence the 1948 Labour Party Conference, as the first to be affected by the decision, has been described in greater detail than last year's. When the time comes the hon. Member will find that this year's Conservative Party Conference will similarly be more extensively reported. I should perhaps add for the information of the House that this Survey, prepared in my view with notable objectivity, is produced solely for reference use by United Kingdom information officers abroad, though copies have always been placed in the Library and are readily supplied on request to any hon. Member.

Mr. Gammans: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that any fair and un-biassed person will accept that explanation? Is he seriously trying to defend that 17 times as much space was given to one party compared with another, and does he still say that there is no political bias in that organisation?

Mr. Morrison: It is not true to say that 17 times as much space was given, because the Industrial Charter, which was the main business of the Conservative Party Conference, had been dealt with in a previous issue. If the two things are brought together, which is quite legitimate, it will be found that the treatment was comparable. However, I may say that the newspapers reflected a somewhat similar contrast, and we have no control over them. "The Times" gave 313¼ inches to the Conservative Party Conference of two and a half days in 1947 and 518½ inches to the Labour Party Conference of four and a half days in1948. Similarly, the "Manchester Guardian" gave respectively 203¾ and 599¾ inches.

Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate his officers on managing to fill up a page and a quarter with the extremely thin material provided by the Conservative Party Conference?

Mr. Frank Byers: May I ask the Lord President of the Council the date on which this decision was made this year?

Mr. Morrison: I could not say the date, but it was this year.

Mr. Maclay: In the light of his first reply, will the right hon. Gentleman at least make certain that full and proper treatment is given to the conference of the Liberal National Party which will be held in Harrogate on 24th and 25th June?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I did not know that such a conference was proposed, but if the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars I will do the best I can for him.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Economic Situation

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he estimates Britain will become economically independent of foreign aid; if he is satisfied that the Government's plans to achieve this so far have produced adequate results; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I regret that the questions raised by the hon. Member are not suitable to be dealt with by Question and answer.

Mr. Osborne: Even if they are not suitable to be dealt with by Question and answer, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that they are quite important? If the Marshall Aid were to fall, which trade would be most affected? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House that, please?

Sir S. Cripps: That is another question.

Mr. Osborne: It is a very important question.

Balance of Trade

Mrs. Mann: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the amounts of the adverse balance of trade for 1937, 1938 and 1939; and the balances in terms of present value.

Sir S. Cripps: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. Mann: Will my right hon. and learned Friend at lease how these deficits compare with what has been happening lately?

Sir S. Cripps: One can say, I think, that if our pre-war trade were revalued at 1947 prices, the adverse visible balance would have been twice as big as it was in 1947.

Following is the answer:


PRE-WAR VISIBLE BALANCE OF UNITED KINGDOM TRADE.


(c.i.f./f.o.b.).


£ million.
1937.
1938.
1939 1st half year (annual rate).
1947.


Adverse visible balance of trade:






1. Actual
431·3
387·2
366·7
591·2


2. At 1947 average values
1,160
1,190
1,200
591·2


1. Imports have been included c.i.f. and exports and re-exports f.o.b.


2. Imports, exports and re-exports have each been revalued by the use of average value indices.

Income Tax Arrears (Ex-Service Men)

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether claims made by the Inland Revenue Department for under-payment of Income Tax against ex-Service men in respect of their wives' earnings in wartime employment may be settled by surrender of Post-war Credit certificates.

Sir S. Cripps: Under a special arrangement authorised by my predecessor and announced in the House on the 29th October, 1946, these arrears, like P.A.Y.E. arrears due at the end of 1945–46, may be set-off against Post-war Credit for 1945–46, but I cannot authorise any general settlement of arrears of tax by set-off against credits.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is it, then, the case that if one is in debt to the Government, Post-war Credits can be released before the statutory age, whereas if one pays one's dues punctually, one has to wait till the age of 65?

Sir S. Cripps: Yes; in these very limited cases of indebtedness where, as a matter of convenience, the set-off was allowed.

War Damage Claims

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider giving a direction to the War Damage Commission that, in the cases of claims which fall to be dealt with on a cost-of-works basis, they should not seek to exclude from such claims the costs incurred by reason of conditions imposed by local authorities which require the execution of works which did not originally exist.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. The War Damage Act specifically provides that the amount of a cost-of-works payment shall not exceed the cost of making good the war damage by reinstating the property in the form in which it existed immediately before the occurrence of the damage.

Mr. Skinnard: But is it not a hardship to some of those who have had their property destroyed when local authorities make it a condition of the licence that extra work shall be put in?

Sir S. Cripps: That is an extra capital expenditure no doubt, but one cannot vary the terms of an Act of Parliament for that reason.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the hardship caused in a large number of cases by the refusal of the War Damage Commissioners to consider late claims, he will set up a small independent body to review the decisions of the Commission on this point.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): No, Sir. Discretion to extend time limits in particular cases of notification of war damage has been deliberately entrusted by Parliament to the independent decision of the War Damage Commission. The lines on which they are proceeding and will continue to proceed were discussed in somewhat difficult circumstances in the House last Friday and are accurately set out in a letter dated 28th May, which I addressed to the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton), a copy of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As hon. Members will see, the policy is endorsed by my right hon. Friend and myself.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the cause of discontent is the manner in which the Commission have exercised this discretion? Is he aware that they have, by their very legalistic interpretation of the relevant provisions, inflicted a great deal of hardship on a number of very small people?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course, the Commission would not accept that as true, and I must repeat that they are an independent body.

Later—

Mrs. Middleton: I tried to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on Question 53, but failed to do so. May I draw your attention to the fact that there seemed to be a discrepancy—

Mr. Speaker: I do not quite understand. We have got to Question 58, I did not call the hon. Lady for a supplementary question on No. 53, and therefore she cannot raise it now.

Mrs. Middleton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker; the right hon. Gentleman referred in his reply to a letter which he had sent to me, and also to the Debate which took place in this House on the Adjournment last Friday. There seemed to be some conflict between the reference to the letter and the reference to the statement made in that Debate.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but we are beyond that Question.

Following is the letter:

"H.M. Treasury,

Treasury Chambers,

Great George Street,

S.W.1.

28th May, 1948

MY DEAR MRS. MIDDLETON,

When I saw the members of the Blitzed Areas Group recently on the subject of the late notification of war damage, I explained that in the War Damage Act Parliament had imposed on the War Damage Commission the responsibility for deciding whether or not a late notification of war damage should be admitted in any particular case. I promised, however, to discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with the Chairman of the Commission the various points raised by the Group and to let you know the outcome. I have now done this.

I gather that the Group are mainly concerned with two classes of case—(i) cases where the local authority have repaired some, but not all of the war damage, and the house-owner, in the expectation that the Authority

would sooner or later complete the job, has not troubled to notify the damage to the Commission; (ii) cases where the owner, having informed the local authority of the damage, considered it unnecessary also to advise the Commission.

The Chairman of the Commission does not contest the suggestion that there may be some cases where house-owners were genuinely in ignorance of their obligation to notify the Commission if they wished the Commission to meet the cost of repairs. He has explained, however, that the Commission have felt themselves unable to disregard the fact that over 3,400,000 notifications have been sent to the Commission's offices and that of this number nearly 3,200,000 relate to houses. The great proportion of these houses have been repaired in whole or in part by local authorities. These figures demonstrate not only that the notification procedure was well known to the public, but that the public were also generally aware that notification to the Commission was necessary even in cases where the local authority were carrying out repairs.

The Commission take the view that it is not unreasonable to expect property-owners to take some interest in a scheme devised for their financial benefit, and they do not consider that a plea of ignorance of the procedure, advanced some years after the occurrence of war damage, is in itself a sufficient ground for admitting a notification given long out of time.

In applying their late notification procedure the Commission have paid full regard to the point that as long as local authorities were carrying out war damage repairs, house-owners in the areas concerned might reasonably have assumed that their houses would be repaired by the local authorities, and in cases where a late notification has been submitted while the local authority were still ordering repairs, and for a reasonable time afterwards, it has been the Commission's practice normally to admit the notification if the outstanding damage was clearly war damage. Apart from a few special areas, however, local authorities have ceased to carry out war damage repairs for a long period, and the Commission, who have a duty, not only to the war damage claimant, but to the taxpayer at large, would have exposed themselves to serious criticisms if they had taken no steps to limit the acceptance of notifications given some years after the occurrence of the damage, and in complete disregard of the Regulations.

It is the Commission's experience that it would not be in the public interest to accept the records of local authorities as evidence of outstanding war damage. These records were often prepared at high speed tinder conditions of extreme pressure, without inspection of the damage by qualified persons, and often on the unsupported statements of owners and tenants, and the conditions under which repairs had subsequently to be carried out, with inadequate technical supervision, made it impossible until well after the end of the war to maintain adequate records of the work done or the work remaining to be done.

There is no doubt, however, that local authority repairs included a large amount of repair of ordinary dilapidations as well as war


damage, and one of the Commission's main difficulties in dealing with late notifications has been the tendency of property owners, sometimes acting in good faith and sometimes not to regard as war damage any defects in their properties not apparent at the outbreak of war, and to ignore the fact that over a long period of years little or no maintenance work has been carried out. The difficulty of distinguishing between war damage and dilapidations due to ordinary wear and tear, particularly where the damage is of a minor character, increases with the passage of time, and the Chairman of the Commission has advised me that he and his colleagues on the Commission can see no practical alternative to the policy they have adopted after the fullest consideration, if the Exchequer is to be adequately protected. Indeed, although the Commission are still accepting notifications in exceptional cases within the limits of their policy, that is to say, in general only cases of substantial structural damage which has not been repaired and is beyond doubt war damage, they consider that the time will shortly arrive when they must refuse in the public interest to accept any belated notifications whatever.

The Commission will for the time being continue to consider each case on its merits, and the Chancellor and I have agreed that in view of the difficulties inherent in the problem, and of the long lapse of time since the last damage occurred, it would be wrong to expect the Commission to modify their policy.

Yours sincerely,

(Sgd.) W. GLENVIL HALL."

Mrs. Lucy Middleton, M.P.,

House of Commons.

Foreign Travel Allowances

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the additional allowance, equivalent to £10 in foreign currency, is no longer available to cover running expenses of motor cars taken by residents in the United Kingdom for use on continental holidays; and if he will reconsider this.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. The car allowance was withdrawn last Autumn at the same time as the basic travel ration because we could no longer afford it, and there has been no improvement in our foreign exchange position such as would justify an extra currency concession at the present time.

Sir J. Mellor: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that such an allowance would not ultimately cost any more in foreign currency than the purchase of a foreign railway ticket to the value of £10 in the United Kingdom in sterling

which would then have to be converted into foreign currency to pay for it?

Sir S. Cripps: If a payment of £10 is made, of course it does not matter what it is made for if it is in foreign currency, I agree, but it is not necessary to spend as much as that on a travel ticket abroad.

Mr. Gammans: If people take a railway ticket from here to Italy and pay in sterling, a proportion of that has to go to the French and Italian railways. What is the difference between that and allowing people to spend an equivalent sum on petrol so that they can take their cars?

Sir S. Cripps: A great many people do not travel as far as Italy They go to Boulogne or Ostend.

Customs Seizures (Sale Proceeds)

Captain John Crowder: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what are the total proceeds of sales by auction of goods seized by the Customs for the six months to the latest available date, giving the figures for articles of clothing and jewellery separately.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Such goods are now sold by tender. Sales in the six months ended 31st March, 1948, fetched £72,240. This sum includes £28,123 for jewellery, including watches, and £5,268 for clothing and other textile goods.

Captain Crowder: As regards clothing, could the Financial Secretary say whether the buyers have to surrender coupons?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Normally, I gather, they are tendered for by wholesalers, but of course the eventual purchaser would have to hand in coupons for what he buys.

Mr. Scollan: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of that came out of Germany?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry, but I cannot do so without notice.

Mr. Orbach: Can my right hon. Friend say whether "clothing" includes coats made of fur?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir, I could not say.

Post-war Credits

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what would be the cost of releasing to 100 per cent. disabled pensioners their Post-war Credits.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret that this information is not available.

Statutory Rules and Orders

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the increasing number of complaints from the public that they are unable to obtain a large number of the many thousand statutory rules and regulations issued by the Government throughout 1947 which are now out of print, he will now give further consideration to making an adequate supply available.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have nothing to add to the several answers I have given the hon. Member on this subject.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the last occasion when I asked this he asked me to supply the information which I myself was asking? Is he not further aware that there were in the course of 1947 an average of eight rules and regulations day in and day out? How can the public obey these rules and regulations when many of them are out of print? Will he really give this his attention, because it is a matter of importance, and will he give up the unfinished thought in which he has been indulging?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have answered several times Questions put by the hon. Gentleman and I have written him a very long letter. I have asked him to give me details of the orders he has in mind and I will do my best to see that he gets them.

Mr. De la Bère: On a point of Order. May I have a list of those which are out of print, and may I give notice that I will raise this on every possible opportunity? It is really a very bad case.

Interest-free Loans

Mr. Keeling: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the total number of loans made to the Treasury free of interest during the war which are still in hand; and whether he has reconsidered the suggestion that as the lenders

hold certificates only entitling them to repayment three months after the conclusion of a treaty of peace they should now be informed that they can get their money back at once on application.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: About 6,000. The position is generally known, but I have decided to remove all doubt by sending a notice to individual holders. The notice will be issued in a few weeks' time, and I will then circulate a copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Keeling: For this reply, for which this is the fourth time of asking, may I say thanks?

Government Publications (Distribution)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that publications of the Central Office of Information, such as "Target," advocating increased production in every industry throughout the country, are sent out indiscriminately to all industries, including a substantial number which have recently been warned to reduce their output owing to lack of outlet for their products; and if he will give an assurance that greater care and discrimination will be exercised in future and that the circulation of this publication will be curtailed.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Increased efficiency and productivity are just as important in contracting as in expanding industries. The answer to the second part of the Question is therefore, "No, Sir."

Mr. De la Bère: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me, in view of the shortage of newsprint, what is the use of wasting newsprint, sending it round to people whose production is being curtailed, exhorting them to increase their production? Surely it is the most appalling waste of newsprint, and I hope that my friend Lord Beaverbrook will record it in his paper.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a tact that this appeal for increased production was sent also to the national association which represents the undertaking profession?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I doubt it. It was sent only to firms employing no or more employees, and I doubt whether most undertakers employ as many as that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from

the provisions of the Standing Order (sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 98.

Division No. 224]
AYES.
[3.30 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Ewart, R.
Mack, J. D.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Fairhurst, F.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Farthing, W. J.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)


Alpass, J. H.
Fernyhough, E.
McKinlay, A. S.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Field, Capt. W. J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Follick, M.
McLeavy, F.


Attewell, H. C.
Foot, M. M.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Awbery, S. S.
Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Ayles, W. H.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Balfour, A.
Gallacher, W.
Marquand, H. A.


Barstow, P. G.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Barton, C.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Battley, J. R.
Gibbins, J.
Mellish, R. J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gilzean, A.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mikardo, Ian


Benson, G.
Goodrich, H. E.
Monslow, W.


Beswick, F.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Moody, A. S.


Bing, G. H. C.
Grenfell, D. R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Binns, J.
Grey, C. F.
Morley, R.


Blackburn, A. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Gunter, R. J.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Boardman, H.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Bottomley, A. G.
Hale, Leslie
Mort, D. L.


Bowen, R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Moyle, A.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Murray, J. D.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nally, W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hardy, E. A.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bramall, E. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Herbison, Miss M.
Oldfield, W. H.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hicks, G.
Oliver, G. H.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Orbach, M.


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.
Hoy, J.
Paget, R. T.


Burden, T. W.
Hubbard, T.
Parker, J.


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Parkin, B. T.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Byers, Frank
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Pearson, A.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Peart, T. F.


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Perrins, W.


Chater, D.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Piratin, P.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Janner, B.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Cluse, W. S.
Jay, D. P. T.
Popplewell, E.


Coldrick, W.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Collindridge, F.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Collins, V. J.
Jenkins, R. H.
Pritt, D. N.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Proctor, W. T.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pryde, D. J.


Crawley, A.
Keenan, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Daggar, G.
Kendall, W. D.
Randall, H. E.


Daines, P.
King, E. M.
Ranger, J.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Kinley, J.
Rankin, J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kirby, B. V.
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Richards, R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lang, G.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Deer, G.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Delargy, H. J.
Leonard, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dobbie, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Royle, C.


Dodds, N. N.
Lever, N. H.
Scollan, T.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Levy, B. W.
Segal, Dr. S.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Sharp, Granville


Durbin, E. F. M.
Lipson D. L.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Dye, S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Longden, F.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lyne, A. W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McAdam, W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McAllister, G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)




Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Titterington, M. F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Snow, J. W.
Tolley, L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Solley, L. J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Sorensen, R. W.
Usborne, Henry
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Soskice, Sir Frank
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Sparks, J. A.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Stross, Dr. B.
Wadsworth, G.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Stubbs, A. E.
Walker, G. H.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wise, Major F. J.


Symonds, A. L.
Warbey, W. N.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Watkins, T. E.
Woods, G. S.


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Watson, W. M.
Wyatt, W.


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Weitzman, D.
Yates, V. F.


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.



Thurtle, Ernest
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tiffany, S.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Mr. Simmons and


Timmons, J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Mr. George Wallace.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Baxter, A. B.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beechman, N. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Renton, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, N. (Handsworth)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, Roland


Bullock, Capt. M.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Ropner, Col. L.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Scott, Lord W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Low, A. R. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Snadden, W. M.


De la Bère, R.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Studholme, H. G.


Drayson, G. B.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Drewe, C.
McFarlane, C. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Teeling, William


Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lend.)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Duthie, W. S.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Eccles, D. M.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Turton, R. H.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mellor, Sir J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Molson, A. H. E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gammans, L. D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Glyn, Sir R.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Odey, G. W.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Grant, Lady
Osborne, C.



Grimston, R. V.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Major Conant and


Head, Brig. A. H.
Pickthorn, K.
Brigadier Mackeson.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

As amended (in Committee and on re-committal), further considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Constituencies and electors.)

3.42 p.m.

Sir Andrew Duncan: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, after "in," to insert:

"(a) the City of London constituency shall be those resident there or who possess, in accordance with Part II of this Act, a nonresident qualification there; and
(b)."

In moving this Amendment I will not delay the House for long, but I make no apology for asking the Home Secretary and the House to reconsider the position of the City of London. It has been represented as a separate constituency from the birth of Parliament, and I think it is common ground in the House that throughout its long record the City has consistently championed the causes of Parliamentary freedom and municipal development. Nor do I think there will be any dispute that the City has played a part of supreme importance in the history of Britain and the Commonwealth, and that it has held, and still holds, a unique place as our Empire capital, and the centre of world trade. It is neither unimportant nor irrelevant that I should remind the House of the rôle played by the ancient Guildhall and Mansion House as an appropriate setting for great national and international occasions and purposes.
In view of all these facts and circumstances I imagine most hon. Members will view with regret the breaking of a continuity of Parliamentary status so prolonged as that which the City has enjoyed, even if that break did not have the effect of doing injury to the prestige and the position of the City or did not reflect upon the part which the City must still play in the rebuilding of our economic life. I suggest that the proposals in the Bill do injury in both these respects.
The constituency method is, I think, rightly regarded in this country as the best means of eliciting public opinion from time to time as to the Government to

whom responsibility of office is to be entrusted. For the proper functioning of that democratic principle it may well be argued that there should be constituencies as equal in size as is practicable and that no person should have more than one vote. In the process of redistribution and reform, however, we cannot wipe the slate entirely clean. We cannot proceed as if we were starting afresh with a new set of people and no historic background whatever.
So far as the City of London is concerned the fact remains that the place is really more important than numbers. That fact was recognised in 1931 and again in 1944. The respective Home Secretaries—first, the Right Hon. J. R. Clynes, and, secondly, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, both maintained the view that, in the light of all the circumstances surrounding the City, it should not lose either its political identity or its political entity. London is exceptional among our cities by reason of the fact that the working population is overwhelmingly large and the resident population is triflingly small. In order, therefore, to enable the City of London to be represented, it is still necessary, as it was in 1931, when Mr. Clynes was dealing with the matter, to preserve the business qualification. When the more battered parts of the City are restored and the very numerous business premises now under Government requisition are derequisitioned, there would be a great increase in the numbers of persons qualified to vote.
3.45 p.m.
By this Amendment we are not asking for more than one Member—I have no personal interest in that—nor are we asking that anyone should have more than one vote. We are asking that the City of London, exceptionally, should have retained to it the business qualification, on the basis that a voter may elect to use his non-residential vote in the City instead of using his residential qualification elsewhere. The City of London has such historic associations with Parliament that its claim for this special consideration is fully justified. The views of the Lord President of the Council are on record as recently as 1944 and, although I think there was a slight recantation in the House recently, I hope he will still


feel animated by the same respect for the historic and sentimental circumstances to which he confessed in 1944. When we add also the economic considerations, the case becomes overwhelming.
On the economic side the City of London is the largest exporting centre in this country. With its raw material markets, banking and finance, ship owning and chartering, insurance and underwriting, and all the other services that swell the invisible exports, the contribution which the City of London makes to the country's economy is enormous. I suggest, therefore, that its separate Parliamentary status should be retained as a symbol of our faith in the recovery of our commercial as well as our industrial life, and of our belief that the City of London, in spite of the changes involved by the war, will retain its prestige as a main centre in world trade.
The City has a background and a concentration of experience which will be found nowhere else in the world, an experience which gives it a clear claim for consideration irrespective of numbers. We must think of the City not only as it is regarded by ourselves, but as it is regarded and esteemed by people abroad. We cannot over-estimate what it means to the Commonwealth or to those many countries who, in the past, have been aided in their development by the activities of the City, or, indeed, in the eyes of the world generally. I was interested recently in an article in an important American journal which referred to the City of London as something that continues to live and to function—and, indeed, to exercise leadership—in spite of the difficulties through which we have passed or are still passing.
The prestige of our capital City will still be held in the world, but there are in certain quarters of the world today envious eyes being cast upon it, particularly in the present monetary conditions, envious eyes on its institutions and its influence. It would be wrong to give the impression, or to run the risk of giving the impression, that this House no longer regards the City as possessing that unique importance which has been hitherto recognised by the peculiar position it has held in our Parliamentary, political and economic life. Parliament should positively sustain and confirm the City's great

traditions and its world prestige by preserving its Parliamentary independence free from merger, either with this neighbour or that.

Mr. Bramall: I think I am speaking for hon. Members on this side of the House when I say how much we appreciate the very moderate manner in which the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) has moved the Amendment, which is in striking contrast to many other speeches made from the other side of the House during this Debate. But we should not allow that fact to blind us to the falsity of the grounds on which the Amendment is based. We all agree with the right hon. Member in venerating the part which the City of London has played in the history of this country, and in particular of Parliamentary institutions, but we must recognise that we are looking at the matter with the eyes of 1948, and that the City of London which played that part has nothing in common with the London of today, except for the bricks and mortar of some of its remaining buildings.
The City of London which played that great part in the story of Wilkes and the many conflicts concerned with Parliamentary institutions was the greatest residential centre in this country, the largest conglomeration of population in this country, and the largest city in which people lived. In that capacity it played its great part. It was also a great business centre, because it was the place where the greatest number of people lived together in this country. That has all gone. Today we have a City of London in which only 4,000 people live.
There are many other great centres and towns which have played an historic and noble part in our history. Their populations have declined and, as a result, their Parliamentary representations have been lost. Instances have been given of other constituencies in London which have a very long history and which are losing their position as separate constituencies. Other instances can be given outside London and I can think of some small towns in Kent and Cornwall which were important ports in their day, but whose day has gone and who have had to cede their place as separate entities for Parliamentary representation.
Another argument adduced by the right hon. Gentleman was that this House


should demonstrate its confidence in the City of London as the leader of our economic life. I do not want to go into the totally irrelevant question whether or not we consider the part played by the City of London in our economic life as having been beneficial. That would be quite irrelevant to the Amendment, although I am sure my hon. Friends and I could say something on that point. The way in which this House, or this Government, or the people can demonstrate their confidence in the business leaders of their country and the leaders of their economic life, is not by saying that this or that particular area of the country should have a vote in Parliament. Is there anyone who can say what are the voting arrangements in the business centre of Paris, or New York? I cannot, and I am sure very few hon. Members could do so.
Is there any of us who, when considering whether the economy of this or that country is on a sound foundation, and whether this or that country will revive or decline, brings into calculation whether or not the business centre of a particular city is accorded separate representation in the Parliament of that country? Surely that is totally irrelevant. The manner in which we can demonstrate our faith in economic institutions, if we consider it necessary to demonstrate our faith in the City of London as a leading economic institution, will be entirely different. The granting of separate political representation has no relevance whatever to the problem. It is not going to have any effect on people outside this country, who, I am quite sure, are unaware, as to the great majority, of what are our arrangements in this regard, and they will not notice any change once this Measure has been passed.
It is clear that there is no ground of logic which can overcome the point put in a previous Debate by the Home Secretary, that here is a concentration of population of only 4,000 electors, yet we have had to deprive many historical constituencies with electorates of 14,000, 15,000, 20,000, or 25,000. They have had to lose separate representation in spite of the long history behind them, many of them because it is inequitable that small areas should continue to return a Member when larger areas have their votes pooled to

return a Member for a larger constituency. The 500,000 or so who work in the City of London will not have a vote there, either under this Amendment or any other, although they have an interest in the workings of the City. The only people who will have a vote will be the 4,000 who live there, and even if the right hon. Gentleman's proposal of an alternative business premises vote should be allowed as an alternative to residential qualification, only 11,000 or 12,000 would qualify. I cannot see any ground of justice whatever on which we could possibly accept an arrangement by which that purely accidental collection of people should enjoy that advantage when many other constituencies throughout the country are having their separate representation removed, merely because their population has sunk below a certain level.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Some foreign observer, studying the character of the English people, said:
When the English think, they are always wrong. When they feel, they are always right.
We have had a speech by the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) which is typical of so much of the thought which is coming from the party opposite these days. It is a speech which exemplifies the sort of creeping common sense which is paralysing and making dull this country. This creeping common sense, this grey averageness which the party opposite is creating, is typical of those whom my noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) described the other day as "dim clerkly people." This grey tog grows thicker and thicker under the manipulation of the party opposite.
4.0 p.m.
What is my right hon. Friend asking in this Amendment? That a tradition which has existed for hundreds of years shall have nothing more than a symbolic survival of one Member. Unlike the university seats, which represent a solid bloc at the present time against the Government, this is only one vote. I should have thought that even the Lord President might have considered taking the risk of one vote. Logic and the common sense of the panty opposite are both on their side, but there is something in this greater than logic; there is tradition. [An HON. MEMBER: "Privilege."]


No. Let the party opposite only keep their common sense under control for a moment longer and try to feel what those in the outer Empire feel about this country, a feeling in regard to which the party opposite have become vandals and destroyers.
Who is the Lord Mayor of London? Why not say that he is merely the head of a local council? That is not true, or if it is true it is not the whole truth. He is a symbolic figure throughout the world. It was from the City of London that there went out an expression which was quoted everywhere, a phrase which one never hears now unfortunately, "Safe as the Bank of England." That was an expression in other languages because of the dealings in the City of London. Foreigners would accept contracts on the word of an Englishman. I do not hear these phrases now when I travel abroad, but they once existed.
There is another aspect of the matter. The City of London, with its guilds and its city companies, once supplied a refuge for five Members of this House who had had the courage to vote against the King. What a splendid thing it was that there should be that refuge. I look upon the progress of politics in this country and I think there may come a time when some of us will also have to go down the river and hide from the wrath to come. All these things are happening, and to say that this miserable two and two makes four—[Laughter.] would ask the hon. Member for Bexley what do two moons and two lemons make? Four what? That is the cheap elementary arithmetical mind of hon. Members opposite—to destroy a cathedral and build a factory. There is the real spirit of the Socialist Party, to destroy anything which has roots in the past, to build a world upon our little second-rate selves. That is what the Socialist Party is doing in this country.
I say to the Home Secretary, a man whom I admire and very much like, that I believe that he does not take any pleasure in rejecting this Amendment. I believe if it were left to him, he would realise how reasonable this is, because it goes so deep in our history as a people. I ask, Must the Home Secretary listen to the crack of the whip, must the Lord President give him his orders? There are many signs that the Lord President gives many orders. I

say, following the acts of vandalism towards the university seats, the stupidity of yesterday's Debate, the deliberate attempt of the party opposite to stop people from voting, a thing I never thought I should see in the British Commons—that is what they are doing—and because of his completely reasonable and friendly approach to this subject, I hope that the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I begin to feel very uncomfortable in the Debate on this Bill, I have received so many eulogies from the party opposite. I am bound to tell them that I do not deserve any of them with regard to this matter. I am quite sure that the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan), with his Scottish ancestry, shares my respect for common sense, and its denunciation by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) must have been a pain to him. I never reject any Amendment with pleasure; but in order that it may not be thought that the Lord President has exercised any undue influence over me I would point out that I voted against the retention of the City of London on the special franchise in the Parliament of 1929–31. This is no new position for me to adopt.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Wood Green that we really must have some basis upon which we can justify the representation of constituencies in this House. I know of no justification, at a time when the average size of a constituency is about 55,000 to 56,000, for enfranchising a constituency which at the best under this Amendment would have just under 13,000 voters. I cannot conceive any ground upon which that can be supported, and I do not share the hon. Member's view that this is an act of vandalism. The 5,000 resident electors should, we proposed, vote in a certain constituency. I understand that although these 5,000 resident electors have not been consulted, some of the people who might be included in the 13,000 and some who will never have votes in the City under any business or residential qualification, have decided they would prefer to vote elsewhere. We shall come to that point later.
We do not despise the great part which the City of London has played in the


history of this House and of Parliamentary Government, but there are other constituencies the names of which are just as much entitled to be held in honour. What of the people who returned Eliot and Hampden? Would any one suggest that because these great names were connected with such boroughs as St. Germans in Cornwall and Wendover those two boroughs should continue to be represented in this House? After all, we have to deal, as each generation of Parliamentarians has to deal, with the facts of our time. I hope that the time will come when there will be a substantial increase in the residential vote in the City of London. The provisions of this Bill ensure that when that time comes that shall be taken into account at the periodical review and the boundaries of the constituencies shall be altered.
I cannot see any reason for treating the City of London differently from any other constituency in this matter, but I am bound to say that I think there has been some wisdom—again we shall come to the point later—in the selection which the City has made in a way which will ensure that at probably the earliest date of all, its claims will come up for reconsideration. I cannot get over the fact that there are fewer than 5,000 resident electors in the City, and I can see no ground for providing a special arrangement for business premises votes for Parliamentary Elections confined to the City of London. Therefore, with regret—I say with regret because I think that the right hon. Gentleman put his case today with a moderation and cogency which was sadly lacking from the presentation of the case when we dealt with this matter during the Committee stage of the Bill—I cannot accept the Amendment, because of the inexorable facts of the numbers concerned.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I cannot let the Home Secretary get away with all that he has just stated on this Amendment. My right hon. Friend the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) addressed himself, in his very moderate and well reasoned speech, purely to the question of the merits of the continued representation of the City. But that Question was examined much more fully and much more exhaustively than this House is able to do, either in

Committee or on Report, by the Speaker's Conference, which sat under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, in 1944. No change has taken place, so far as the City is concerned, since 1944 which would justify a departure from the agreed recommendations of that conference. We all knew in 1944 that the City had been heavily injured by war damage. The great fire had taken place and the City had been heavily blitzed. Representatives of all parties at that Conference knew well that for many years to come the population in the City, both residential and business, must continue to be small. Yet that Conference agreed, without dissent, without even a vote being taken—

Mr. Parker: rose—

Mr. Peake: May I be allowed to finish my sentence—that the City of London should continue to be represented in this House. The only matter upon which a division was taken in the Conference was the question of whether the City should continue to be represented by one Member or by two. I think the hon. Gentleman wished to interrupt me.

Mr. Parker: That was the point I wished to make, regarding representation.

Mr. Peake: There was unanimous agreement in the Conference that the City of London should continue to be represented, at any rate, by one Member. That agreement was defended in this House by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was defended also by the Lord President of the Council. It was defended by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) who has just interrupted me, and by several other Socialist representatives in the House of Commons. There was no change of status which would justify Ministers, who were a party to that agreement, in recommending any other course to the House of Commons except the continued representation of the City by one Member.
The only change that has taken place is that the Socialist Party was returned with a majority at the General Election. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite should have implemented the agreed recommendation of the Conference of 1944. Of course, they might well have been voted down in a Division in the House by their own supporters, but, at any rate, had they taken that course, they would have fulfilled the


honourable obligation into which they entered in 1944. It is, therefore, more in sorrow than in anger that once more we feel that we must record our protest against a departure from what we consider to be an honourable obligation.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I should like to point out one curious thing. I do not believe that in the list of constituencies the name "London" appears at all. In other words, the greatest bond in the Empire is not mentioned so far as I can see. Leeds, Birmingham and other places, are extensively mentioned, but all the London constituencies seem to become absorbed under various other names, and what we are doing is to take away the name of London. I am open to correction but I can see nothing that conveys to the ordinary person the name of London in the same way that other places are represented.

Mr. Pritt: Would the hon. Member look at page 97, line 35?

Mr. Bramall: And page 98.

Mr. Williams: Yes, but it does not say "London." As I read it we shall not mention the representative as "the hon. Member for Battersea, North, Borough of London." We shall say, "Battersea, North," or "Battersea." As regards Leeds, for example, there is a heading—

Mr. Ede: May I help the hon. Member? If he will look at page 98, line 11, he will see that the "City of London" is there mentioned.

Mr. Williams: Yes, I see that. I am sorry. At any rate, it took a considerable while for the right hon. Gentleman

to discover that, and he should know his own Bill better than I do. I saw a lot of running about before that came to him. I am still capable of noticing that. The fact remains that we are not keeping it in the same position as it had before. I was not in the least surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman said today. For a long time I had not taken a tremendously dissimilar position to that of the hon. Gentleman opposite who spoke earlier about the City of London. I was not interested one way or the other, but I became completely converted by one of the greatest and most interesting speeches I have ever heard in this House in favour of keeping the City of London. It was made in 1944 by the Lord President. He made out a case that we in this House should not be ruled entirely by figures, or by the sort of argument that the Home Secretary brought forward, of little minute things, or the counting of heads but that we should try to preserve in this great institution of Parliament some of the bigger things representing the past.

It is no use the Home Secretary referring to St. Germans, because it happens to have had a particularly eminent and very valuable Member of Parliament. "St. Germans" would convey nothing abroad. That speech by the Lord President is complete and absolute evidence that the Government today are doing a wanton thing. They are incapable of being severed in any way from the extremely small-minded attitude which the Home Secretary has adopted.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 269.

Division No. 225.]
AYES.
[4.20 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Crowder, Capt. John E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Cuthbert, W. N.
Grant, Lady


Astor, Hon. M.
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Grimston, R. V.


Baldwin, A. E.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)


Barlow, Sir J.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Head, Brig. A. H.


Baxter, A. B.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Beechman, N. A.
Drayson, G. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Birch, Nigel
Drewe, C.
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Boothby, R.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hollis, M. C.


Bowen, R.
Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lord)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Duthie, W. S.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Eccles, D. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Butcher, H. W.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Keeling, E. H.


Challen, C.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gammans, L. D.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Glyn, Sir R.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.




Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Osborne, C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


McCallum, Maj. D.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Pickthorn, K.
Studholme, H. G.


Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)
Pitman, I. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


McFarlane, C. S.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Taylor, Vine-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n. S.)


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Price-White, Lt-. Col. D.
Teeling, William


Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Raikes, H. V.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Touche, G. C.


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Turton, R. H.


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Vane, W. M. F.


Mellor, Sir J.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Molson, A. H. E.
Ropner, Col. L.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Scott, Lord W.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.



Noble, Comdr A. H. P.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Odey, G. W.
Snadden, W. M.
Major Conant and




Brigadier Mackeson.




NOES.


Acland, Sir Richard
Dobbie, W.
King, E. M.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Dodds, N. N.
Kinley, J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Kirby, B. V.


Alpass, J. H.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lang, G.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Durbin, E. F. M.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Attewell, H. C.
Dye, S.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Awbery, S. S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Leonard, W.


Ayles, W. H.
Edelman, M.
Leslie, J. R.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lever, N. H.


Bacon, Miss A.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Levy, B. W.


Balfour, A.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Barstow, P. G.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lipson D. L.


Barton, C.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Battley, J. R.
Ewart, R.
Logan, D. G.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Fairhurst, F.
Longden, F.


Benson, G.
Farthing, W. J.
Lyne, A. W.


Beswick, F.
Fernyhough, E.
McAdam, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Field, Capt. W. J.
McAllister, G.


Binns, J.
Fellick, M.
McEntee, V. La T.


Blackburn, A. R.
Foot, M. M.
McGovern, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Forman, J. C.
Mack, J. D.


Blyton, W. R.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Boardman, H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gallacher, W.
McKinlay, A. S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
McLeavy, F.


Bramall, E. A.
Gibbins J.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Grenfell, D. R.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.
Grey, C. F.
Marquand, H. A.


Burden, T. W.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Mellish, R. J.


Byers, Frank
Gunter, R. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Callaghan, James
Hale, Leslie
Monslow, W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Moody, A. S.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Champion, A. J.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Chater, D.
Hardy, E. A.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Haworth, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Mort, D. L.


Coldrick, W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Moyle, A.


Collindridge, F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Murray, J. D.


Collins, V. J.
Hicks, G.
Nally, W.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Horabin, T. L.
Naylor, T. E.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Hoy, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Crawley, A.
Hubbard, T.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Daggar, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Daines, P.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Orbach, M.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Janner, B.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Parker, J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Parkin, B. T.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jenkins, R. H.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pearson, A.


Diamond, J.
Kenyon, C.
Peart, T. F.







Perrins, W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Warbey, W. N.


Piratin, P.
Snow, J. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Solley, L. J.
Watson, W. M.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Sorensen, R. W.
Welts, P. L. (Faversham)


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Soskice, Sir Frank
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Pritt, D. N.
Sparks, J. A.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Proctor, W. T.
Stross, Dr. B.
Wheatlay, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Pryde, D. J.
Stubbs, A. E.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Randall, H. E.
Sylvester, G. O.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Ranger, J.
Symonds, A. L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Reeves, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilkins, W. A.


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Richards, R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Royle, C.
Tiffany, S.
Wise, Major F. J.


Scollan, T.
Timmons, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Segal, Dr. S.
Titterington, M. F.
Woods, G. S.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Tolley, L.
Wyatt, W.


Sharp, Granville
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Yates, V. F.


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Usborne, Henry
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Viant, S. P.
Zilliacus, K.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wadsworth, G.



Simmons, C. J.
Walker, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Skinnard, F. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Mr. Popplewell and


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Mr. Richard Adams.

CLAUSE 3.—(Adaptation of 7 & 8 Geo. 6 c. 41.)

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out "613,"and to insert, "618."
This Amendment although very important is, in a sense, consequential. It is consequential upon the Government Amendment, at the same place in the Bill, which we discussed in Committee. That increased the figure in the Bill as orginally drafted from 591 to 613. My Amendment is necessitated in order to remove some of the most glaring anomalies resulting from the Government's action in adding 17 seats to the English representation. The Final Report of the Boundary Commission embodying their proposals was published on 24th October, and their proposals were included in full in the Bill when it was printed just before Christmas. The Boundary Commissioners recommended for England 489 seats, instead of the 485 or thereabouts laid down in the Act of 1944.
It was not until 19th March, two days after we had concluded the Committee discussions on the universities and the City of London, that the Government announced that they proposed to add 17 additional seats to the English representation. That announcement was made ex parte, without any previous consultation with the Opposition, and it was made entirely upon the responsibility of the Government. We still do not know and

have never been told at what date the Government referred to the Boundary Commisioners, acting in an unofficial capacity, their suggestion that one seat should be added to each of the nine large cities. These were the Government's proposals to add 17 seats to the English representation. They told us that they had consulted the Commission upon them, and they published a White Paper embodying the Commission's recommendations as to how these extra 17 seats, which the Government had decided should be granted, should be demarcated in detail.
The Government's action, admittedly, was dictated by pressure put upon them by their own supporters behind them, because nobody on this side of the House at any time asked for additional representation, and it cannot be too often emphasised that we on this side have at all times been ready to accept in full the verdict of the impartial body established by Parliament to complete this scheme of redistribution. The decision of the Government, of course, invalidated the whole of the Commissioner's proposals, because who can doubt that the Commissioners would have produced a totally different scheme if their terms of reference had been to redistribute the English constituencies upon the footing that there were going to be not 489 seats for England, but the larger figure of 506? From this decision to augment the English representation by 17 seats has flowed naturally a whole crop of anomalies.
The first anomaly is that, by dividing the eight large boroughs, we have 16 borough constituencies which rank among the smallest in the country, and, of course, the whole scheme of the Act of 1944 was that the constituencies with the smallest numbers of electors should be the wide and sparsely populated country areas and not the densely populated municipalities. In the second place, by adding nine seats to each of the big cities, the average representation of these cities is being reduced below the average quota. The right hon. Gentleman has adopted the principle which he set out, I think, on 24th April in this House—that he was going to add a seat to each of these cities so long as, by doing so, he did not bring the average representation of the city down below 50,000.
In the third place, the addition of 17 new seats lowered the average electoral quota, which had stood at 58,700 to 56,700. The centre of gravity of the redistribution scheme has moved in a downward direction, with the effect, of course, that constituencies which are still to contain 78,000 or 79,000 electors are more out of gear with the new quota than constituencies of over 80,000 were with the quota as it originally stood.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling the House, on this question of the large cities, that the Conservative associations in those cities had not asked for more representation? Is he aware that, in Manchester, there was complete agreement between the Conservatives and the Socialists, and that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Withington (Squadron Leader Fleming) put his name to an agreement made between the parties?

Mr. Peake: I really was not dealing with that sort of point. The question whether there was some local demand by the parties in the constituencies for an extra seat really has very little to do with the argument which I am now putting forward. I am pointing out that, if we have 17 extra seats, we must lower the quota, and, if we lower the quota, we immediately invalidate the whole of the scheme of redistribution produced by the

Commission on the basis that the number of seats would be fixed at a certain figure.
We were faced with a difficulty when we knew that the Government proposed 17 additional seats. Obviously, at that stage, with 506 seats to be allocated to England, in place of 489, the whole matter ought to have gone back to the Boundary Commission for the preparation of a new scheme on the new basis of a new number of seats, but, of course, it was equally impossible for that to be done at that stage. It would have involved probably another year's delay in the scheme of redistribution. Nor was it possible for the official Opposition, with their limited resources of time and manpower, to produce a complete scheme of redistribution for the whole of England upon the basis of 506 seats.
We were, therefore, left with the only alternative that, if we were to do anything to remedy some of the anomalies resulting from the Government's action, we must look for those areas which would become under-represented if the Government's proposals were adopted, and try to secure some extra representation in parts of the country which obviously would deserve it in the light of the Government's decision and the lowering of the quota. We put forward certain proposals which were sent to Mr. Speaker by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on 9th April. On the same day, or a day later, a copy was sent to the Home Secretary, as we wanted him to be fully aware from the outset what our proposals were. We did not wish that there should be any suggestion that we were acting in a hole-and-corner manner.
In selecting as we did eight areas where we thought an additional nine Members ought to be provided, we were governed by one consideration only, and that was the question of the figures. We did not select those areas because we thought they might turn out to provide extra seats for Conservative candidates. Actually, I am informed, in the constituencies affected by our proposals, there are 16 Labour seats involved and something like 11 Conservative. It cannot be said, therefore, that we have put forward our proposals with any view to party advantage.
I want to deal, if I may, quite briefly, with each of the areas which we suggest should have additional representation. They are as follows, and it will be noted that the Amendment I am moving provides for only five additional seats and that is for the reason that our proposals, so far as they concern South-East Essex and the Twickenham-Staines area of Middlesex, have been considerably criticised by the Boundary Commission because in those areas the local government boundaries would suffer considerable interference. The case on numerical grounds in those areas was exceptionally strong. In South-East Essex there were five seats averaging no fewer than 69,500 electors, and on numerical grounds alone the case for an extra seat was unanswerable. An extra seat would have reduced the average representation there to 58,000—still in excess of the electoral quota—but we have to pay regard to considerations of local patriotism and local government convenience, and for that reason we do not intend to proceed with our proposal regarding South-East Essex.
When we come to the scheme in Middlesex, which embodied the Twickenham-Spelthorne-Staines area, there we find that there were three seats averaging no fewer than 75,600, and an additional seat there would have given an average figure still in excess of the quota. In this area, again, there are, in the view of the Commission and their report, insuperable difficulties arising from local government boundary considerations and, therefore, again, in that area we shall not press our original proposal for an additional seat.
That leaves only five areas in which an additional seat is being proposed. The first is in Cheshire, in the area Birkenhead-Wallasey-Bebington-Wirral. This area has had four seats allowed to it with an average of over 66,000—that is 10,000 in excess of the electoral quota—and we have suggested that for this area one additional seat should be granted, reducing the average size of these constituencies to 53,100, which is a higher figure, of course, than the representation which the Home Secretary now proposes for the great cities of Bristol, Leicester, Nottingham, Bradford and Leeds, where the average constituencies will be something less than 53,000.
4.45 p.m.
So far as Kent is concerned, we have suggested one extra seat in the Crayford and Erith areas. In that case there were four seats averaging 67,200, and an extra seat there would give five seats averaging just under 54,000, very nearly the new electoral quota. Moreover, the scheme we have proposed has an advantage over the original scheme proposed by the Commission themselves in that it keeps intact the rural district of Dartford which, in the original scheme, would have been split. In the Middlesex area, we have Hornsey, Tottenham and Wood Green areas, the claims of which were advanced from the benches opposite during the Committee stage of the Bill. These boroughs have three Members and they average 69,500. An extra seat there would give four constituencies averaging 52,174, which will be a higher number of electors per constituency than there will be in the great cities of Nottingham and Leeds, as proposed by the Home Secretary.
In the Kingston-upon-Thames area of Surrey, we pointed out to the Commission that there were eight seats with a high average of 67,000 electors. One additional seat there, which is all we now suggest—we originally put forward on a numerical basis a claim for two seats, but we are now asking for only one on account of difficulties which the Commission have encountered in drawing up a scheme for 10 seats instead of eight—one extra seat will leave the Surrey constituencies with an average electorate of between 59,000 and 60,000, that is to say 3,000 to 4,000 in excess of the average electoral quota. Further, our scheme is supported by the Commission, who say that on the numbers Surrey is entitled to an additional seat.
The only other area with which we are concerned is East Sussex. Here, we have a county area with four seats averaging 65,800 and that, of course, is about 9,000 in excess of the electoral quota. An additional seat in East Sussex would reduce the average size of those constituencies to 52,000, a figure for a county area—and a county area which is fairly widespread—of more electors per constituency than there will be in the future in the great cities of Leeds, Nottingham and, I think, also Bristol.
Considered from a statistical or numerical aspect, we think our claims in all these


five areas are unanswerable and, moreover, exception cannot be taken to them on geographical grounds. They all fall within the conditions which the Home Secretary has himself adopted for the addition of seats in other parts of the country. I am only sorry that we cannot, without breaking across the right hon. Gentleman's own principle, support the claim of the hon. Member for one of the Plymouth Divisions for an extra seat in Plymouth. The right hon. Gentleman has constantly refused this demand upon the ground that if he added an extra seat to Plymouth the average size of the constituencies there would fall below 50,000.
None of the proposals which we put forward comes anything like as low as 50,000 electors per constituency. I would give this argument to the hon. Members for Plymouth, which I do not think they have thought of previously, and that is that the Commission regarded as a normal size for a constituency in their Report anything between 70,000, on the high side, and 50,000, on the low side. That was when the quota stood at 58,700. Now that the Government proposals have reduced the average size of the quota to something just over 56,000, it would surely be reasonable to regard as normal for a constituency some figure lower than the 50,000 which the Commissioners adopted for the purpose of their first report. I do not think it is possible for the case we have put forward to be rejected upon any other grounds than those of prejudice against any suggestion made from this side of the House, or a purely partisan suspicion, which is quite unfounded, that these proposals are intended to and might result in the election of one or two Conservatives to the House.

Mr. Ede: I did not rise at once because I was expecting that some other Member would speak before it was thought necessary for me to reply. Of course, there is the difficulty on Report stage that did not hamper us on the Committee stage that, having once spoken, it is not possible for a Minister or anyone else to speak again, without the leave of the House. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to what happened in the House on 26th April. That was when the right hon. Gentleman himself spoke on this matter. I am quite willing to listen to the case that can be put forward for those constituencies, but

I am bound to point out that we were endeavouring to achieve in our proposals something nearer the one vote one value principle than was given by the Boundary Commissioners' original Report. We held that the disparity between borough and county constituencies was too wide to be justified. It was a point that had been raised by the Opposition themselves during the Second Reading of the Bill, and it was a matter which we felt called for some ratification. Therefore, we proposed that the eight large boroughs should be divided on the ground that they represented too large a constituency for a single Member to look after. I think I am correct in saying that that is a view which is very generally shared—that 80,000 is too large a number for any single Member to look after.
When we received the Report from the Boundary Commissioners it seemed that they themselves had obviously felt some misgiving on that score, for, quite unsolicited by us, they sent with their Report a statement showing the way in which those eight large boroughs could be divided if the Government thought that 80,000 was, in fact, too large a constituency for a single Member to represent. The Amendments we proposed there were, in consequence, those which had been in the mind of the Boundary Commissioners before the matter had been raised in the House at all. The Government, on their consideration of the matter, thought that it was appropriate that that division should take place. We were then faced with the fact that the difference between the average of a county and a borough division was still too wide, and we took steps to see in what way, without conflicting with any of the rules that had been laid down for the division of constituencies, something could be done to rectify that matter.
We thought that the best way to deal with it was to take the case of the nine large seats where the giving of an additional seat would still leave them within the limits of tolerance that the Boundary Commissioners had set for themselves of 50,000 as a minimum and 70,000 as a maximum. In none of these cases did we conflict with any of the Rules that were laid down by the House for the guidance of the Boundary Commissioners. The House accepted those Amendments,


but the localities had not had an opportunity of expressing their views with regard to the exact boundaries between constituencies, and so arrangements were made whereby representations could be made to the Boundary Commissioners by persons interested in each of the areas concerned. As a result certain altered suggestions were made by the Boundary Commissioners, which are embodied in Amendments now down to the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said, wrote to Mr. Speaker suggesting that in certain other areas an examination should take place. Except in the case of East Sussex those are not related to the whole of a county or a city. They have regard to the corners of counties. It has been pointed out by the Boundary Commissioners that the effect in some of these cases of selecting the former, having regard to the county as a whole, involved special representation of the areas concerned. In a letter of 22nd April they say:
We feel bound to point out, however, that in certain of the areas proposed for increased representation, notably in Essex and Middlesex, the formation of additional constituencies is only possible by cutting local government boundaries, and that in two instances, namely, in Surrey and Middlesex, the allocation of two additional seats would result in those counties as a whole being over-represented.

Mr. Peake: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that what the Commissioners are saying is that the allocation of two additional seats in Surrey and Middlesex would lead to over-representation. That is why we are asking only for one additional seat in each of those areas.

Mr. Ede: I was coming to that point. I thought it was as well to deal with this thing methodically. I understand—and the right hon. Gentleman has said so—that that is the reason why in those two counties they have reduced their demand from two to one. Let me take the county of Surrey first. As a result of this change they propose to give Wimbledon and Surbiton quite separate representation in the House, with an electorate of 43,812 in the case of Wimbledon and 43,245 in the case of Surbiton, but Epsom with an electorate, larger than either of them, of 45,776, will remain a part of a larger constituency including the urban district of Leatherhead, which gives it a total

number of electors of 64,819. Therefore, the borough which has the largest electorate of the three is not dealt with, while the other two are dealt with.
5.0 p.m.
With regard to Middlesex county, the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward still involve the division of local government areas. The new constituency of Harringay consists of parts of Tottenham and parts of Hornsey. Again, in Kent, one corner of the county is tackled. The county stretches for many miles, yet apart from that one corner it is not tackled by the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. In East Sussex, each of the proposed new seats involves a considerable splitting of local government boundaries. Each of them involves the division of rural district council areas. In fact, the provisions here involve very considerable division of local government units. In Cheshire, one corner of the county, namely, the Wirral Peninsula, is the only part which is tackled in the proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman.
I am not giving a final answer on this matter at the moment. I am willing to listen to anything that may be said by any hon. Member with regard to these Amendments, but I am not inclined to accept them.

Mrs. Middleton: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? We have before us proposals for the extension of a number of constituencies. They will come up again later for discussion in connection with the First Schedule. I take it that if the Amendment is accepted by the House we shall not be confined in our discussion of the Amendments to the First Schedule, which have been mentioned by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). May we take it that all Amendments which seek to bring into existence, or to prevent from going out of existence, any constituency will have equal consideration by the House when the discussion reaches the First Schedule?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): If the hon. Member desires to speak, and catches the eye of the Chair, she can then discuss those matters.

Mr. Parker: The Opposition have been very wise in dropping the proposal with regard to Essex, because it cuts completely across local government boundaries in the area. The proposal has aroused the opposition of all the important political parties and all local authorities in the district. I am surprised at the Opposition, for when the proposal for redistribution came forward last year, they took a very strong line that we should not cut across local government boundaries but should create natural units of representation as far as possible. Yet now they have just put forward Amendments which cut across local government boundaries in almost every case, and create artificial units of representation.
I take the view, which I think most hon. Members on this side of the House would support, that it is desirable that representation in this House should correspond as far as possible with local government units and not with artificially created units. It is true that my constituency would have been given two Members and we in Dagenham should no doubt have been very gratified to get them; but in fact the proposal looked very much like a piece of political log-rolling. Everybody in Essex took it for that. The proposals would have meant the transference of the strongest Labour wards from Horn-church and Ilford into Dagenham, with the likely result of creating two strong Labour seats in the area and three strong Conservative seats. At the moment the whole area has four Labour representatives. Therefore the proposals did appear to be a very obvious piece of logrolling.
I am pleased that the Opposition have been wise enough to drop the proposal which certainly would have made the name of the Conservative Party stink very much in the area. From the point of view of the decencies of political life it is desirable that such proposals should not be brought forward when they attempt to pull local government boundaries about with the object of creating particular seats to return candidates to this House of particular political views.
I do not know what the result of all these proposals will be in detail, but it is highly undesirable to bring forward suggestions deliberately designed to cut across local government boundaries in the way that was suggested in this proposal. I

hope that when the proposals are considered in detail we shall resist those which cut across local government boundaries, even if they do not do so in so unpleasant a way as in the Essex proposal.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Home Secretary has said, quite properly, that he will consider individual Amendments when they are discussed. Therefore, in regard to the Amendment which affects my own constituency—

Mr. Ede: I would not like anyone to be misled on this point. I said that I would have preferred to hear the case for the Amendments before I made my speech just now. If the Amendment is rejected I should doubt whether specific Amendments would be called.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is precisely the difficulty in which not only the right hon. Gentleman but the whole House is placed. It would therefore be appropriate for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I suggest, to give some guidance to us whether it would be in Order for us to advance the full arguments upon the Amendment which is now before the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The general discussion can take place now. Hon. Members should advance general arguments at this stage but not go into minute details.

Mr. Peake: Do I understand from what has fallen from the Home Secretary that if the Amendment is not carried and if the figure remains at 613, it would not be your intention to call any of the Amendments, from whichever side of the House they may come, proposing additional representatives for any part of the country?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the Amendment is not carried; the new constituencies proposed in it may not be discussed subsequently.

Mr. Peake: Simply because this Amendment, which does not relate specifically to any Amendment to the First Schedule, is defeated, it would seem very strange that Amendments standing in the name of myself and my hon. Friends should later not be selected,


while Amendments standing in the names of other hon. Members are, for some reason or other, to be selected.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It might be of interest to the House to know that none of those Amendments is likely to be called.

Mrs. Middleton: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Did I understand you to say that no Amendments will be called on the First Schedule if this Amendment is defeated?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is exactly what I said.

Mr. Pritt: Since there are definite matters to be considered and discussed, and the Home Secretary has said that he is willing to discuss them, cannot we have some more definite way of discussing them? For example, would it not be possible to reject this Amendment on the understanding that other specific matters should subsequently be discussed, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks it right to invite his supporters to give way on any other particular constituency the matter could be put right in another place? I do not want any particular party to have any particular seat, but I would like a fair discussion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Obviously it is not possible for the House to alter Mr. Speaker's selection.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I apprehend from that Ruling that it would be in Order on this Amendment to deploy at moderate length, arguments which would otherwise be deployed in favour of one particular Amendment.
The Home Secretary referred to a part of the country with which I am concerned, and perhaps, therefore, I might direct certain arguments to him on this subject. I start with the advantage that I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a deeper personal knowledge of this part of the country than probably other parts of the country with which we are immediately concerned, and it was for that reason, no doubt, that in the course of his speech he made what, on the face of it, seems to be the perfectly fair argument that the Opposition proposals, while seeking to confer separate representation on the borough of Surbiton, do not make a similar proposal in the case of the borough

of Epsom. The right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the area, no doubt, caused him to make that remark. Therefore, perhaps I may explain why that has been done. The difficulty with which we are faced and with which the Boundary Commission were equally faced is to get relatively fair mathematical representation without going across local Government boundaries, and I can reassure the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) that so far as the Surrey proposals are concerned, no local government boundaries are crossed.
The reason why we have elected to put forward a proposal for separate representation for Surbiton and not for Epsom is this: Epsom when combined with the urban district of Leatherhead involves a constituency of some 64,000, which is a constituency of reasonable size. When Surbiton is combined, as the Boundary Commission proposed originally to combine it, with the borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, that will result in a constituency of 74,000 electors. Not only will it do that; it will produce a constituency of 74,000 electors immediately adjoined by other disproportionately large constituencies which immediately adjoin the proposed Wimbledon constituency of 75,933, Richmond with 63,205, the Esher Division of Surrey with 62,956, and, separated only by the River Thames, the constituencies of Twickenham and Spelthorne, with 79,000 and 69,000 electors, respectively.
The reason why we have put forward these proposals is that the immediate area appears to be under-represented, and that the only method of curing that without violating the rule as to local government boundaries is the proposal which the Boundary Commission, in response to our representations, put forward as being the best method of solving this difficulty, namely to confer separate representation on the boroughs of Surbiton and Wimbledon. It seems that what the Boundary Commission recommended as the best method—it was, of course, our proposal as to the numbers—is, in fact, the best method, and that is the reason for the apparent disparity of treatment between Surbiton and Epsom.
5.15 p.m.
The case is first put forward on the mathematical basis that by reason of the


figures which I have already quoted to the House, as the proposals in the Bill stand, the area of North-eastern Surrey concerned is very much under-represented with a number of large constituencies immediately adjoining each other. We submit this proposal to the House as a means of curing that state of affairs. It is perfectly true that if our proposal is accepted the borough of Surbiton will be left with an electorate of 43,245, and that electorate will actually be larger than those of 11 of the constituencies created as a result of the Government's own proposals. I have a list of those constituencies here, but I do not propose to trouble the House with them unless the Home Secretary so desires. A glance at the figures shows that the Surbiton electorate will be larger than no fewer than 11 of the new constituencies to which I have just referred, and will be close to three more. Even in the case of Surbiton alone—the Wimbledon figure is slightly larger—that would seem to be a reasonable case on numbers.
Further, there is the fact which has to be taken into account that the borough of Surbiton contains an area in which development is taking place and will take place. It is, in point of fact, an expanding area. Therefore, if a figure on the low side has to be taken, it can perhaps be appropriately taken in such an area rather than in an area where further expansion and development is not possible. There is the fact—and it is one of some importance—that local opinion has very strongly expressed itself on this matter. A most remarkable town's meeting was held in the borough of Surbiton recently, on which occasion—and it is the only occasion within my recollection—the local Conservative, Communist, Labour and Liberal Parties not only were present, but agreed. This remarkable unanimity of political opinion was supported by no fewer than some 30 outside organisations, including all the churches, various professional and industrial bodies, and bodies, many of which I must confess would seem to have remarkably little connection with the question of Parliamentary representation, but including such responsible national bodies as the National Union of Teachers.
That town's meeting put forward a resolution which went to the Boundary

Commission, and I believe it has also been sent to the Home Secretary. They put forward the merits of the proposals as well as the unanimity of opinion so effectively that I do not think that I need trouble the House with the resolution, since I know the Home Secretary has had it furnished to him. It makes the point that not only is this an expanding area but that it is an area of substantial geographical extent—some 4,709 acres. It has definite geographical markings and limitations, and would appear to be not unreasonably qualified for separate Parliamentary representation. I know the Home Secretary well enough to know that he has studied that resolution conscientiously.
That is the case so far as the Surrey proposals are concerned. We submit that as the Bill stands, a considerable mass of population in North-eastern Surrey is enormously under-represented, that these large constituencies adjoining each other involve the value of the vote in that part of the country being appreciably less than the value of the vote in other parts of the country. That disparity has been increased by the lower average which has resulted from the Government's own proposals on the Committee stage. We submit that our proposal would do something to rectify that position, and that it would still leave North-eastern Surrey under-represented from a mathematical point of view, but we feel that that is an inevitable evil if we are not to ignore the very important consideration to which the hon. Member for Dagenham referred of not crossing local government boundaries.
The proposal, as has been pointed out, so far as method is concerned has the approval of the Boundary Commission. So far as merit is concerned, it has overwhelming mathematical evidence in support of it. So far as local opinion is concerned, it has also very considerable local support. I may perhaps remind the House of one other factor, and that is that the Royal and ancient borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, although they regard our proposal as a great deal better than that of the Royal Commission, have taken the view that it does not go far enough, and that there is a case for even greater representation. All these factors seem to make it quite clear that if this question of Parliamentary representation is to be considered on its merits, dispassionately


and without prejudice, an overwhelming case has been made out for adding one seat to the county of Surrey, along the lines recommended by the Boundary Commission.

Sir Richard Acland: Since you have given your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have looked at the Act which this part of the Bill seeks to amend, and I would like to make a submission. We are considering an Amendment to substitute for 613 the figure 618. The proposal of 613 is itself a proposal to make a substitution in the Third Schedule of 7 & 8 Geo. 6. c. 41. The words there are:
RULES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS.
The number of constituencies in the several parts of the United Kingdom set out in the first column of the following table shall be as stated respectively in the second column of that table"—
the table as to Great Britain
Not substantially greater or less than 591.
As the Bill stands unamended, this rule in the previous Act will then read:
Not substantially greater or less than 613.
The Amendment which we are discussing would alter that to read:
Not substantially greater or less than 618.
It seems to me that it is a little hard, when we have the words, "Not substantially greater or less," to rule that there is such merit in 613 or 618 that we are now deciding in this Amendment all the cases brought up in the whole series of Amendments proposed at a later stage. It may be that the discussions of the House could be eased if the Home Secretary would indicate that he can accept 618, and if, at the end, we only increase it by two to make it 615, it would not be all that wrong. I am speaking against my own interests, because I do not want any increase, but for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is a little hard to have such a technical point brought up without notice. At the moment I find it impossible to give a Ruling on it, but I will consider it, and the Debate had better proceed.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is it not the case that if the Government were to accept the Amendment, we should be able to discuss and debate

each particular proposal in full detail, whereas on your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, we are debarred from going into detail on each of these proposals; and might it not be a convenient course if this Amendment were accepted on the understanding that we should then be able to discuss each case later on?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that that would affect it. The Ruling simply means that so far as there is any amendment for alteration of boundaries which differs from what the Boundary Commission have set out, and the Government have accepted, it will not be called. Any proposal for alteration of boundaries that differs from what the Boundary Commission have set up and from what the Government have accepted, will not be up for further consideration.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Does that mean, Mr. Beaumont, that if this Amendment were carried, none of the consequential Amendments on the Schedule would be called?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Only those Amendments which have relationship to the five new constituencies which have been proposed.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I gathered from your previous Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, which followed the statement made by the Home Secretary, that you would permit arguments to be adduced either for or against the subsequent Amendments which are appearing on the Order Paper irrespective of the effect upon them of the passing or rejection of this Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that this is becoming a somewhat hypothetical discussion. We are having an extremely wide debate on this subject, and, so far, no one has been called to Order.

Earl Winterton: The point which I wish to raise is in support of that made by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). I think you will find, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that when there have been previous discussions on re-distribution, the occupants of both the higher and lower Chair have been extremely lenient in interpreting the rules from the point of view that individual cases should be considered. I ask you to take that into consideration when you give your further considered Ruling.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought that I had intimated to the House that there would be allowed a very wide and extended debate on this Amendment.

Mrs. Middleton: I gathered from what you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that even if this Amendment were carried only the five Amendments on the Schedule that have been put down by the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be called when the Schedule is discussed. That would put other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends and myself, who also have down an Amendment which seeks to add one constituency, in a very invidious position. I suggest that if this Amendment is carried, then all the proposals on the Amendment paper for increasing the number of constituencies ought to be considered on their merits.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am asked to give a Ruling on a hypothetical matter. If this Amendment is carried then a further Ruling can be given.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: It seems to me that on this Amendment there are two questions of principle being considered. So far, my hon. Friends have been dealing with one, and I wish to deal with the other. We are considering an Amendment whereby the figures in the Schedule should be altered from 613 to 618. In order to arrive at a conclusion on that proposal, it is, I think necessary to consider the matter from two aspects. The first is the general aspect as to the kind of numbers which we ought to consider desirable for this House, without any reference to any particular proposed scheme. The second involves the detailed consideration of the scheme put forward by my hon. Friends. I wish to say a word about the general question of our numbers, irrespective of the particular scheme which my hon. Friends have put forward.
5.30 p.m.
The history of this matter, in my recollection, was as follows: When the discussions were going on in the last Parliament which ultimately led to the Speaker's Conference, members on both sides were concerned lest the interim proposals which we generally recognised to be necessary, and which led in the present Parliament to the increase of our numbers

from 615 to 640, should prove a permanent addition to our ranks. The idea, therefore, was that we should go back to our former number, in substance, as soon as the present Parliament was over, in order that an attempt to increase the total number of Members of this House should not be made. It was thought, so far as I remember, that any attempt permanently to raise our numbers might lead to a dangerous process whereby at each redistribution the numbers of this House would be allowed to creep up and creep up, as the line of least resistance, and so gradually to arrive at a number which would prove unwieldy an undesirable. That, so far as I remember it, was the understanding which subsisted between all parties until the Committee stage of this Bill.
When the Committee stage of this Bill was reached, the Government, in response to pressure, succeeded in carrying proposals which substantially increased the total numbers in this House. I myself, and certain of my hon. Friends, resisted those proposals at the time they were made, precisely on the ground that they gave an opportunity to do the very thing which it had been generally understood, at the time of the discussions which led to the Speaker's Conference, was not to be done. But, despite our opposition, those proposals have been carried. The point I wish to put to the Home Secretary arises out of the situation which was created by the carrying of those proposals, and is this. Now that he has, by his own proposals, once again thrown into the arena of discussion the desirable total of membership for this House of Commons, let him now examine the question afresh.
I should agree with any argument which was put forward suggesting that it was undesirable to increase the membership of this House from time to time by small degrees; but by a like token I think that, now it has been decided to increase it this time, we ought to consider the matter de novo and not simply deal with the question piecemeal, because only in that way can we arrive, at any stage, at some kind of finality. The view which I put forward to the Home Secretary for consideration is that the figure of 613 is, in fact, too small, not only by reference to the particular proposals of my hon. and right hon. Friends, but because on any view the membership of this House ought


to be, at any rate to some extent, larger than 613.
That a House of Commons with a membership figure larger than 613 is not unmanageable can, I think be shown by reference to history. At any rate, from the time of the Irish Union until the Irish Treaty the membership of this House was substantially greater than it is now. I think I am right in saying that the membership now is 640, and the membership then was 658. If I gave those figures I should not be substantially in error.

Mr. Ede: It was 658 from 1801 to 1885; 670 from then until 1918; 707 immediately after 1918; but on the departure of the Irish Members under the Treaty it dropped to 615.

Mr. Hogg: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that exact figure, which entirely bears out the general point I was making, that in its classical days the House of Commons was substantially larger than it is at present. Therefore, we can, I think, afford to be a little more generous with numbers than we have been hitherto from the time when the discussions leading to the Speaker's Conference were first begun; and now that the matter is again in the melting pot, those of us who hold that opinion—which, I may say, I have always held—must regard themselves as free to ask the Home Secretary to consider it.
What are the arguments in favour of a slightly larger representation in this House? In the first place, we have to face the fact that the duties of a Member of Parliament have become increasingly onerous as time has gone on, particularly from the point of view of constituency business. In the old days, constituents were fewer in number, and worried their Members mainly with arguments on questions of principle, as to the attitude Members should take upon the major questions of the day. I think I shall be speaking with general agreement when I say that much of the routine relationship between the Member and his constituents nowadays consists in a detailed examination of the way in which the operation of the administrative machine impinges upon the life of the individual, so that there is a direct relationship between the number of constituents in a constituency and the amount of work which the Member has to do.
Indeed, there is a relationship between the number of constituents in a constituency and the degree of efficiency which a Member can show in the discharge of his duties. That, I think, has been generally recognised. Therefore, my first point in favour of slightly increased numbers for the House of Commons lies in the fact that an increase in numbers is necessary from the point of view of the due discharge of our duties, having regard to the increased quantity of individual cases in constituency business. I might also add that the population has materially increased in the period under review.
My second argument is this. There are a number of constituencies all over the country—my own, I think, is one, but there must be many others—where it is extremely difficult to give adequate Parliamentary representation to local communities—an admittedly desirable object—without creating one or more constituencies which are rather smaller than the present quota lays down as the minimum. So much has that been recognised to be the case that in the Government's recent proposals cities like Norwich are given two constituencies very much under the accepted norm—somewhere, I think, about 40,000 constituents each. There are many other constituencies of round about that figure, in favour of the increased representation of which on a purely numerical basis it would be very difficult to establish a case, but in favour of the increased representation of which on the basis of local community there is a substantial case to be made. The only reason why that case has not been made so far, and has not been able to be argued, either before the Boundary Commission or before this House, has been the overall limitation of numbers which the understanding imposed whereby we accepted this self-denying ordinance in the discussions leading up to the Speaker's Conference.
Perhaps I may give a short illustration from the position in my own constituency, which, although it is in many ways an individual case, will, I think, find a parallel in other parts of the country. My own constituency is in essence a very ancient city with a long tradition and with a university at its centre, which now no longer is to have separate representation. Side by side with that ancient city, the local communications centre, the


shopping centre for the county, the railway centre and the centre for agricultural marketing, a modern industrial town has grown up on the eastern outskirts with interests which diverge both from the old town and from the university, which in many ways are difficult to harmonise both in local government and from the point of view of one who seeks to be their Parliamentary representative.
There is, as a matter of fact, a fairly substantial natural boundary dividing the old from the new. The River Cherwell makes that division fairly accurately, with necessary allowance for people who live over the boundary on one side or the other. Apart from the overall limitations of the number of seats in the House of Commons, it would be possible to press the point of view, which I think I am right in saying has been accepted by the local government authority—namely, that there should be two constituencies of East and West Oxford. That would slightly reduce my present constituency of 48,000, but it would be very much less inconvenient than the proposed new constituency, which on any showing will be something like 74,000 or 75,000 and will include the whole of both communities, and which, with the increase in population of which there may be some danger, may be even greater still.
It is only an example, and I give it only as an example, of the general principle, which is this. We have heard a great deal in these Debates of the principle of one vote one value, a phrase which was first used in this connection by the Leader of the Opposition, which has since been accepted by the Government Front Bench. My view has always been that that is not the only principle upon which Parliamentary representation should be based. I have always urged both from the point of view of the geographical constituency and from other points of view as well, that the representation of subordinate communities in an adequate fashion is also a desirable object.
The point I am putting before the Home Secretary, when he considers the merits of this Amendment and before he definitely makes up his mind, is, now that we are free by reason of his own proposals to consider the overall limitations on our numbers afresh, would it

not be wise to take the matter and consider it generally, and try to establish what size the House of Commons ought to be for the next period of time from the point of view of principle? I have an uneasy feeling that at the present time the number that has been fixed is the result of piece-meal alterations; first of all the arbitrary figure of 615 which resulted from the deduction of the Irish Members at the time of the Irish Treaty, then the self-denying ordinance in 1934 whereby, faced with the necessity to increase our numbers temporarily, we were anxious not to give way to logrolling Amendments which would greatly increase the size, and finally the pragmatic sanction of the right hon. Gentleman's own proposals, introduced after the Second Reading, based on the demand of individual constituencies, which add up to no overall figure based on any principle whatever. I submit that a case has been made out for the right hon. Gentleman to justify anew the overall figure he proposes, and I ask him to state, before the Debate on this Amendment comes to a conclusion, the view of the Government on that matter.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has raised the very difficult matter of the ideal size of the House of Commons. It can be a very awkward problem to try to discover what should be the size of the House of Commons without relation to the number of constituencies we want added, which is the only way to find out the figure we require. It is quite wrong for the hon. Member to say that the figure has been arrived at haphazardly, because the figure arrived at was precisely for the purpose of dealing with the most glaring anomalies. Many of us feel that we are in considerable difficulty in discussing this proposal, because we should prefer, particularly the representatives of Plymouth, to discuss our Amendments separately. We should prefer to discuss our matter separately because we think we have a stronger case than that presented by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), and because, if the Home Secretary were to accept what has been proposed, it would enormously strengthen the argument which we wish to present. Therefore, it would have been much fairer and better if we could have discussed this proposal separately. It was


ruled earlier that it would be right for us to discuss now the case we wished to present on the Schedule, and that if we did not discuss it now we should probably not have the possibility of doing so later. I hope, therefore, it is in Order to discuss our case on this Amendment.
We are grateful to the right hon. Member for North Leeds for the argument he presented, which strengthens the argument for having three constituencies in Plymouth rather than two. We wish that instead of breaking his heart over our trials he had come into the Division Lobby with us a few days ago when he could have put his feelings into practice. We are glad that he has seen the error of his ways, and we hope that the Home Secretary will also see the error of his ways. If the Home Secretary does accept this Amendment, and even if he does not, I hope he will consider the case of Plymouth as being at least on all fours with any other case he may accept.
The right hon. Member for North Leeds drew attention to the fact that the introduction of the 17 constituencies alters the case of every constituency in the country, and in the case of Plymouth it means that under the proposed redistribution scheme we shall have two constituencies with 17,000 or 18,000 votes above the quota, whereas if we had three constituencies, as we previously had and for which we are now asking, we should be only 7,000 under quota. That seems to me to strengthen the case we have put on a previous occasion. Moreover, in the case of the constituencies to which the right hon. Gentleman and others have drawn attention, I think that the highest figure represents an electorate of 69,000.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I referred to two examples—one 74,000 and the other 79,000.

Mr. Foot: I think the right hon. Gentleman's figure was 69,000. We in Plymouth are above that figure. If any of these Amendments were accepted it would enormously strengthen our argument. If we were to have three constituencies in Plymouth no such difficulty as the Home Secretary suggested, of interfering with local government boundaries, would arise. It would make the situation very much easier from the point of view of local boundaries if we had three constituencies instead of two. That is emphasised by the fact that it is certain that although

under the Government's proposals if they go through, Plymouth will have two constituencies for the next election, it will have three for the subsequent election. Therefore, we should have great difficulty with our local government boundaries if we have to make this double change. On the ground of local boundaries we have a stronger case than that which has been presented by Members opposite.
On the Committee stage we presented a series of arguments in favour of three constituencies for Plymouth, and I will not repeat them now. Some of those arguments were rejected by the Home Secretary on the ground that he could not depart from the datum line of 1946. Some of the arguments we presented were based on the fact that the population in Plymouth was increasing, and that the city was as heavily blitzed as any other area in the country. Even if we disregard all those arguments about the datum line, which apply with more severity to Plymouth than anywhere else, because our population decreased so quickly and is now increasing so quickly, we are still left with the argument that if Plymouth retains three constituencies we shall have three constituencies of 47,000 each. We shall stay in the category which still applies to about 18 per cent. of all the constituencies in the country, whereas what the Government are proposing to do is to take Plymouth out of that category and put us in the over 70,000 category. That seems to me to add further argument to what was said on the Committee stage, and we believe that if the Government are to make any further concessions or new arrangements following discussion of this Amendment, it would be desirable that the whole case which has been put forward on behalf of Plymouth, not only today but previously, should be reviewed.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend if he can answer a question which he did not answer in Committee. Can he tell us of any other city which has such a unique combination of factors all working together in support of a case for retaining three constituencies instead of two? I hope he will try to answer that now he has had full time to reconsider the whole matter, and will recognise that the case which has been supported from all sides of the House will not involve him in any further difficulties.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am of the opinion that there is no general principle involved in this matter, and that it is very difficult to have a general discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) endeavoured to make the discussion more general, but in view of the Government's own Amendments, which deal with particular cases, it is difficult to see how any general principle is involved. In accordance with the Ruling of the Chair we now have to put in detail the argument for each change that is suggested. I follow the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) in putting the case of a particular area—the Wirral Peninsula of Cheshire. Last time I discussed this matter the Home Secretary was extremely reasonable, and I hope that this time, too, he will accede to my arguments.
The Peninsula is fairly self-contained. It contains two county boroughs, one municipal borough and four urban districts—the county boroughs of Wallasey and Birkenhead, the municipal borough of Bebington, and the four urban districts of Ellesmere Port, Heswell, Wirral and Hoylake. There is in the Peninsula a considerable variety of industries, for instance, Cammell Lairds, Lever Brothers, and the great new developments at Ellesmere Port in connection with oil refining. In addition, very many business people from Liverpool live there, and Wallasey and Hoylake are substantial holiday resorts. So we have a wide diversity of interests and industry to be represented.
The number of voters in the Peninsula is 265,000. At the moment, I have the privilege of trying to represent 116,000, so I shall be grateful to some extent for whatever redistribution takes place. Under the Government's proposals there are to be four Members. We want five Members. This would mean constituencies with an average electorate of 53,000. The reasons which can be adduced in favour of the change are, I think, practical. I have mentioned the diversity of interests and industry; there is also the question of local government boundaries. Under the Government's proposals the present division of the county borough of Wallasey will cease. It will became one constituency, with an electorate of just over 70,000. But the county borough of Birkenhead will be split. There will be

one Birkenhead Division, and the rest of Birkenhead will go into the new Bebington Division, which will contain some wards of Birkenhead and the whole of the municipal borough of Bebington. The four urban districts will remain in the fourth constituency.
Our Amendment is to leave the borough of Wallasey very nearly as it is at present, to leave the county borough of Birkenhead with two seats, to put the municipal borough of Bebington with the urban district of Ellesmere Port, and leave the other three urban districts together. Anyone who has any knowledge of the neighbourhood would, I am sure, admit that that is a much tidier arrangement from the local government point of view. In Birkenhead, there are 98,500 electors. At the last election they returned two Socialist Members to Parliament, both of whom promptly received office—the Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for West Birkenhead (Mr. Collick), who became Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. What has Birkenhead done to be treated so ill at the hands of the Government?
Let us look at other county boroughs which are to be dealt with by the Government. The county borough of Reading, with 84,000 electors, is to have two Members. Why should not Birkenhead, with its 98,000 electors, have two Members instead of only one and one-third, which is the present proposal? At Gateshead there are to be 41,000 electors per constituency; East Ham, with 86,000 voters, is to have two constituencies averaging 43,000 each; Blackburn, with 84,000 voters, is to have two Members with seats averaging 42,000 electors. Battersea, Hammersmith, Paddington, Norwich—all these small county boroughs in the 80,000 region are to have two Members.
6.0 p.m.
Why is Birkenhead not to have two Members? What has it done to disentitle itself to come into this category? It has certainly suffered very severe damage during the war and it did a great deal of good service to the country. There are substantial housing schemes there and it is a place where the population will increase again in the very near future. It is an insult to the people of Birkenhead that they should not be put in this category. I am not expressing any opinion as to whether it is right or wrong that


Reading, Gateshead, East Ham and other places with 80,000 electors or more should have two Members each, but if they are to have two Members why should Birkenhead not have two Members?
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter again and to consider whether we have not made out a good case. No doubt he knows, as he will have familiarised himself with the Boundary Commission Report, that no representations have been made against our proposed change and that the great bulk of people in all parties in the district are strongly of opinion that they are justly entitled with 265,000 electors to five Members of Parliament, and that in particular Birkenhead should have two Members.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I should have preferred to make a submission on a specific Amendment, the Amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), to the First Schedule, page 101, line 9, column 2, to leave out "Borough of Heston and Isleworth" and to insert:
following wards of the Borough of Heston and Isleworth, namely Heston, Hounslow Central, Hounslow South, Hounslow West, Isleworth North and Spring Grove.
I would rather have spoken on that Amendment than on the general principle contained in the present Amendment, but I must take this opportunity of expressing the very strong views held by the borough council of Heston and Isleworth, by the divisional Labour Party of that borough, and a number of residents in the borough who have asked me to speak strongly against the Amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. That Amendment appears to me and to those who have been in communication with me to have been put forward without any reference whatever to any responsible body of opinion in Heston and Isleworth.

Mr. Peake: I do not think the hon. Member could have been in the House at the time, but at an earlier stage I made it perfectly clear that, in view of the observations of the Boundary Commission on these proposals relating to the area of Middlesex, I did not propose to move that Amendment, even if it had been selected by the Chair.

Mr. Williams: I was in the House at the time, but there seemed to be a good deal of confusion and no one seemed to be quite sure of what anyone else said. I wanted to be quite sure of what I was going to say and do on behalf of Heston and Isleworth. If the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is not going to press that Amendment, and if the Home Secretary will say that it is not his intention to act upon it, irrespective of the view of the official Opposition, I shall be happy to save the time of the House. If I get an assurance that nothing on the lines of that Amendment is to happen, I will save the time of the House.

Mr. Ede: It all depends on whether the right hon. Gentleman has a chance to move the Amendment. I understand that he is not going to move it.

Mr. Williams: I am taking no chances then, and in the interests of my constituency—

Mr. Peake: I have made it perfectly clear more than once that I had no intention of moving the Amendment, even if it were selected, and in those circumstances it is clear that the Home Secretary would have no chance of accepting it. Therefore, I do not think the hon. Member need worry himself further.

Mr. Williams: I am very glad to get such a specific assurance. I hope that next time the Opposition put a serious Amendment on the Order Paper, they will get an expression of local opinion in support of such an Amendment.

Mr. Gammans: I represent one of the constituencies which would be affected by this Amendment, and it is therefore proper that I should accept the invitation of the Home Secretary to say something about it. I am in a somewhat difficult situation because, if the Amendment is accepted, it means that I lose some of my constituents. No Member of any party likes to face the loss of constituents with whom he has worked for many years. From a purely personal point of view, I should be glad if the Home Secretary did not accept the Amendment at all, because it would mean losing people whom I have known for many years.
However, I do not think that the issue is only a matter of personal feelings. The issue is that I represent some 75,800 constituents, a number which, incidentally, I


am told is growing. Is it right that a constituency should be made so large when the average is something like 20,000 less, and when we have constituencies with only just over 40,000 voters? If we are adopting the maximum of one vote, one value, it is obvious that if an hon. Member tries to represent nearly twice as many people as another hon. Member he cannot be giving them the same service. That is the issue on which this should be decided.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman denies that Middlesex is entitled to one other seat. The objection he raises is, I think, valid is one sense. He does not deny that this constituency is much larger than the average, or that Middlesex should have another seat, but that if another seat is given it means cutting across existing local authority boundaries. That is true, but I wonder how many constituencies in the country cut across one, two, and in some cases three, local authority boundaries. The difficulty which faces us in this part of Middlesex is that whatever one does one must always cut across existing local authority boundaries. We cannot hope to give greater representation unless that is done. Are we to accept the admittedly unsatisfactory factor of under-representation, or are we to give greater representation at the cost of cutting across local authority boundaries? That is the dilemma that confronts the House.
On purely personal grounds I do not want to lose any constituents, but if it is decided that there must be a splitting of the constituency, I know that the Boundary Commission have considered the matter very carefully and the recommendations they make in their latest draft represent the least possible disturbance of what I would call existing civic entities. The House itself must decide whether or not those recommendations will give greater representation, or whether they will cut across existing civic boundaries.

Mr. Ronald Mackay: I intervene for a very little time to raise one point which follows somewhat on what the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) said. The Home Secretary was good enough at the beginning of the Debate to say that he had in a sense an open mind and would not make up his mind until he had heard the different cases put forward. The hon. Member for

Oxford raised the whole matter in a rather open way. After all, it is common ground—it was common ground on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, and, quite clearly, all the way through—that there is no special number of Members of the House of Commons as such and that the numbers have to be determined by the conditions; that there is nothing magical about 613, 618 or 614 or even a greater number, 650 If that is so, the position is completely free so far as numbers are concerned. There is no reason why the Home Secretary should not accept the Amendment on that ground. No one can suggest that there is a particular number which the House should have except in relation to population and in relation to the quota for individual constituencies.
Two of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference—far be it from me to say that I am bound in any way by anything the Speaker's Conference did; I was not in the House at the time, and I wrote against it and said that many of the recommendations were very bad—dealt with the redistribution of the seats in Scotland and Wales. They suggested that in redistributing the seats in Scotland and Wales they should not lose any seats even though the population was smaller, and they should therefore get the same number of seats as before, although the population might be less. I am not arguing the rights and wrongs of that—I do not think that has been argued during the passage of the Bill—but it means that the quota for the seats of the English constituencies is greater in all cases than that for Scotland and Wales. On a previous occasion the Home Secretary was good enough to say that that argument was one of the reasons he was willing to consider an additional 17 seats. The fact remains that even with the 17 additional seats, the English constituencies are in a less favourable situation than Scotland or Wales in their representation in this House. I urge on the Home Secretary that that is still a reason why he should give the five seats asked for, or even six seats. It was a reason when he gave us the additional 17.
What is the problem? We are trying to get as fair a representation as we can. The representation for the English constituencies so far, must inevitably be less than that for the people north of the


Border and in the west. Looking at some of the constituencies which are the subject of Amendments, we must realise that there is a very good reason for giving consideration to the redistribution now suggested. I have listened to the whole of the Debate, and I was impressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) I found it exceedingly difficult to see why the Amendment to which he referred should not be accepted. It would not interfere with local government boundaries if the additional seat were granted. Plymouth will be some 17,000 or 18,000 above the quota left as it is but if divided, the constituencies will be 7,000 below it. Every seat in Scotland is below that figure, and probably every seat in Wales. I have not worked out the figures since the additional 17 seats were granted but hon. Members will agree that that is probably right.
Why should we argue this problem? The number of Members of the House of Commons is not sacrosanct. It is a question of adjusting the number to the conditions of the population. We have already increased the number to a certain extent because the constituencies in England are in a less favourable position than those in other parts of the country. Looking at the individual cases put in the Debate, if the Home Secretary grants the additional seat requested in each case, he is not giving the electors in the English constituencies more than has already been granted to the people in Scotland and Wales. If there were some reason why the number should be limited to 615, the whole of my argument would go by the board, but there is no reason at all. We know that in many cases the quota has been exceeded. We know that in many cases there are seats where we could get much better representation by adding a few more constituencies to this House. I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider this. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) would withdraw his Amendment so that the individual cases could be further considered and the Home Secretary could say that he will grant three, five or seven seats. He has suggested that he will consider these cases on their merits. I am afraid, from the way the Debate is going that it will be either one or the other—either five or nothing—whereas it is quite

obvious from the evidence we have heard, that in two or three cases there is every reason why these additional seats should be granted.
6.15 p.m.
I ask the Home Secretary to consider the points put by the hon. Member for Oxford, to realise that the thing is in the melting pot, to realise that there is nothing sacrosanct about the number of Members of the House. By granting the additional seats requested, he would be righting what is already a very grave wrong and not righting it to the fullest extent because the representation of England in this House would still be less than that of Scotland and Wales. For those reasons, quite apart from the specific reasons urged in respect of individual constituencies—especially Plymouth, where we have the special circumstances that a seat is being lost and the remaining constituencies are far over the quota, whereas if the seat were not lost they would be above the quota but still not as small as Scottish constituencies—I ask the Home Secretary to act as he said he would act, and to ensure that it will not be a question of turning down or accepting the whole five but of dealing with them on their merits, realising that there is a reason for increasing the number of representatives from those constituencies.

Mr. Cuthbert: I rise to put forward an individual case from East Sussex which is dealt with in the Amendment to the First Schedule, in page 110, line 39, at the end, to insert:
1. Bexhill:

(i) The borough of Bexhill;
(ii) The following parishes in the rural district of Hailsham, namely, Chiddingly, East Hoathley, Heath-field, Hellingly, Herstmonceux, Hooe, Laughton, Ninfield, Waldron, Warble-ton and Wartling, and the rural district of Battle except those parishes included in the Hastings constituency."

I understand that this is the only opportunity I may have of putting it forward. Various Members have put forward the cases of their own constituencies and I feel that we have a case here in relation to the borough of Bexhill. There is an alteration to the East Sussex county constituencies and under the Bill the Rye Division, which I represent, is disappearing. I am one of the displaced persons.


It is to be put under Eastbourne. I rise to say that this is not right and that the Amendment shows the course which should be adopted.
My reasons for saying this are that the figures show quite clearly that the Bexhill and Rye areas would be very much less represented under the new Eastbourne Division than if the Amendment were accepted, and that Bexhill, Battle and the other boroughs of the Rye Division are against being joined up with any larger town to the right or left of them as it cuts across a very important point of local government. The Amendment to which I have referred would make a very much tidier job, and would conform to the figures required by the Home Secretary. I hope that the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment for the reasons that the proposal would not cut across any local government areas, it is backed up by all the local government authorities of the district, and the figures fall in with what he wants.

Mrs. Middleton: I do not want to repeat at this stage either the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) or the arguments I put when our Amendment was moved in the Committee stage of this Bill, but there are one or two points I should like the House to take note of in considering the matter which is before us in relation to the City of Plymouth. I want in the first place to say that the proposal contained in our Amendment to Schedule I is not a proposal which has been authorised by the Boundary Commissioners. After the Debate on the Committee stage on 26th April, when the Home Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) that, as far as he knew,
Any person is entitled to consult the Boundary Commissioners. They are not a Government Department, they are an independent body which was set up by Parliament to advise Parliament on the way in which the constituencies should be arranged and rearranged from time to time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1948, Vol. 450, c. 48.]
My hon. Friends and I wrote to Mr. Speaker asking him if the Commission would take into consideration the situation in Plymouth and advise us as to whether the division which was suggested in our

Amendment was the wisest division of the City. Unfortunately, though Mr. Speaker put our case to the Boundary Commissioners, they were not able to help us in the way they have been able to help the Government and the official Opposition. I would say, however, that despite this fact, the proposals contained in our Amendment are not some that have been devised by my hon. Friends and myself. They have been suggested to us by local government officials working on the spot, who know the City and the difficulties contained therein probably as well as if not better than the Boundary Commissioners. So that in that sense it is a non-party proposal, which we are submitting to the House.
My second point is that there is no political difference whatever in the City of Plymouth with regard either to the retention of the Drake Division in general, or to the particular proposal which is before the House in our Amendment. Indeed, only last weekend the chairman of the Conservative Party in my own constituency was attacking the Government for having deprived Plymouth of the Drake Division—a quite unfair charge for him to make of course since the proposal to deprive Plymouth of the Drake Division was not the Government's proposal; it was the Boundary Commission's. Nevertheless, it is an indication to the House of the strength of feeling that there is on this matter, not only among those people whose views are the same as my own as a member of the Labour Party, but also among those who take the point of view politically of hon. Members opposite.
Thirdly, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact, which was emphasised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that what really matters today in representation is the number of electors whom a Member of Parliament has to serve. If that is the criterion which should be taken, the hon. Members for Plymouth in the two new constituencies proposed by the Boundary Commission would have to serve a larger number of electors than any of the Members in the majority of those constituencies which the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) would like to have considered here today.
I was interested in what the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn


Lloyd) said about the situation in Cheshire. He quoted the fact that there are 265,000 electors approximately in four constituencies, giving an average of 66,392 to each of those constituencies under the proposals of the Boundary Commission. Yet under their proposals for Plymouth, the Devonport Division would consist of 72,115 electors and the Sutton Division of 70,348 electors. If we take the whole of the five areas which are under discussion as a result of the Amendments tabled by the Opposition, we shall find the same to be the case, that the number of electors served in almost the whole, if not the whole of those constituencies is a lesser number than the number which will have to be served in the two Divisions recommended for the City of Plymouth. So on that criterion, namely the number of electors to be served by a Member of Parliament, I submit to the House that the City of Plymouth has a strong claim for reconsideration in regard to the retention of the Drake Division.
My last point refers to the datum line. I have no doubt that it was a reasonable datum line from the point of view of the generality of constituencies, but from the point of view of constituencies like the Plymouth constituencies, it was a datum line that operated most unfairly. Indeed, by the time the General Election comes, the figures for the electorates of the two constituencies proposed by the Boundary Commission in regard to Plymouth will, if the increase of population continues at the present rate, be well over the 80,000 which the Home Secretary himself has taken as being too large for any single constituency. That, of course, is because of the fact that owing to the ravages of war, our population was scattered throughout the surrounding districts. The people who are coming back to Plymouth now and increasing our electorates are not newcomers to the City; they are people who belong to the City, who have felt all along that they belonged to it, who regard Plymouth as their home, and who are only too anxious to get back as soon as they can in order to take part in the life of the city once again.
For those reasons I ask the Home Secretary to give this matter consideration once more, and to see whether there is not, even yet, some way by which he can restore to the City of Plymouth the constituency that it would never have lost

had it not been for the ravages wrought upon the city during the war.

Mr. Grimston: I rise, not for the purpose of winding up the discussion for the Opposition—that will be done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid)—but to put a specific case to the Home Secretary relating to the Amendment we have down in respect of the county of Kent. As the Schedule now stands, there are four seats in Kent—Chislehurst, Dartford, Bexley, Gravesend—which have an average quota of over 67,000, which is more than 10,000 above the new electoral quota after the 17 seats have been added. We propose, to rectify this situation, a new seat in this area to be called Erith and Crayford. There would then be five seats instead of four, and that would reduce the electoral quota to 53,800-odd, which is practically the same as the electoral quota over the whole country.
The Boundary Commission have reported that these proposals were received favourably in the area. There was only one small adjustment proposed, in respect of which they considered a local inquiry to be necessary but for which there was no time, and therefore they have accepted, so to speak, our proposals in the White Paper. The result of that is that the quota relation is good; it is almost exactly what the quota will be. There are no local objections but, what is the strongest point of all, under our proposals the local government boundaries are preserved, whereas under the proposal for four seats in the Schedule the rural district of Dartford is split. I think the Home Secretary will agree that under all these headings—the quota relation, the absence of local objection, and the fact that we preserve the local government boundaries—there is a particularly strong case for the acceptance of the Amendment in regard to Kent.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Irving: I hope that the Amendment will be either withdrawn or accepted because, obviously, some of the very desirable Amendments proposed to the Schedule cannot be agreed upon if this Amendment is rejected. I have in mind especially the case of Tottenham. That case was so strongly put during the Committee stage that the Home Secretary


made no attempt to answer it, except to ask the various speakers how they would treat in a Parliamentary sense the borough of Wood Green. Tottenham has an electorate of 94,500. In London and Greater London there is a number of constituencies with considerably less than 90,000 electors which retain two Members. Under the proposals half of Tottenham is merged into. Wood Green and Tottenham becomes a one-Member borough. I do not want to argue again the case which I put during the Committee stage, but I emphasise that the Home Secretary did ask for proposals for Wood Green. I think this Amendment contains the complete answer and I hope that it will be accepted later when we discuss the Schedule.

Mr. Raikes: I hope the Home Secretary will be impressed by the wide feeling on all sides of the House that there is a case for an increase in the number of Members. Speaking as one who is in no way affected by this particular proposal, I would remind the House that the original disagreement between the Opposition and the Government over the 17 seats was not on the basis that we on this side thought there should be no alterations, but because we took very strong exception to the methods adopted by the Government in making them.
Earlier in our discussions, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) referred to log-rolling on the part of the Opposition, regarding Amendments which the Opposition, in point of fact, are not moving. The hon. Member could usefully have devoted a little more time to reading the Order Paper more closely.
There are two points I wish to make. In referring to the seats which we are bringing forward at a later stage on the Schedule, the Home Secretary said we had taken what might be called only a corner interest in counties instead of treating them on the wider basis, and that in some way we were treating them unfairly. The Home Secretary knows as well as I do, that if we could have provided a much larger number of cases we would do so. We are not anxious at this stage of the redistribution to create more constituencies; we have endeavoured to pinpoint

those which we regard as being the worst cases.
I must add an observation regarding the Wirral seats in Cheshire, the case for which has been made quite clearly by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I should like to call the attention of the Home Secretary to what I think is an important matter for the Wirral peninsula. As has been said, the average number of electors for the existing Wirral seats is 66,000. The Wirral, although a piece of Cheshire by itself, is closely connected with the great city of Liverpool. The interests of the two places are quite clear. I do not think Liverpool has been unreasonably treated but, whilst the average in the Wirral is 66,000 electors per seat, the great city of Liverpool, next door, has approximately only 63,000 under the redistribution for its larger seats; for the whole of Liverpool the average is very much less. The fact that the average numbers per seat in the Wirral should be higher than those of any single seat in the city of Liverpool, and far above the average for Liverpool as a whole, presents a strong case for reconsideration.
I would like also to make a passing reference to East Sussex, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Cuthbert). I think the average electorate for the four county seats is just under 66,000. It will be agreed that county seats are much more of a headache than borough seats. There are the difficulties of travelling from one place to another and of having small communities in many separated villages. For that reason county seats have always been allowed a certain amount of latitude. In East Sussex, however, the reverse applies, with an average electorate of nearly 66,000 per seat. In London, for example, we find that Paddington has been cut into two divisions of just over 40,000 electors each. I am not complaining, but I do say that county seats with an average of over 60,000—or even of 50,000 to 55,000—are very hard cases. This is a case, if ever there was one, which could be met without difficulty by the Government. The solution would be to give that one extra seat which would bring down the average from 65,800 to between 52,000 and 53,000. This is not only a reasonable but an obvious case which should be met.
If the Home Secretary were to say—as perhaps he will—that the case we have put up may cut across certain local boundaries, I do not think that would raise any great difficulties with us. In certain cases the cutting across of local boundaries cannot be avoided. The Commission themselves have been unable to avoid doing so. Where there is a drastic case of a seat or a series of seats bearing too heavy an electorate in proportion to the rest, a very strong case for adjustment exists, even if extra difficulties are entailed in ironing out local problems in the interests of the plan as a whole.
The general feeling in the House, as was said earlier by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the actual numbers of, say, 614 or 615. If we are to do a good job, let us iron out as many of the remaining anomalies as we can. I wish that we could have rather more elasticity than a mere four or five seats. I should like to see about a dozen, which would enable us to meet most of the awkward cases which affect both sides of the House. I hope the Government will not harden their hearts against the Amendment which, at any rate, moves in the right direction for the interests of the country as a whole.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It was agreed on all sides of the House at one time that it was proper to remit a problem of redistribution to the Boundary Commission. Even when that was done we never got a solution which satisfied everybody. Though the solution to be got in that way did not satisfy everybody there were only two proper things to do. The first was to take the rough with the smooth and accept the Boundary Commission's proposals although we did not like them. That was what we were prepared to do after the last Boundary Commission's Report. The other was to make a remit to the Boundary Commission, the remit being, of course, of a width sufficient to deal with the objection.
What happened in this case? There was a first examination by the Boundary Commission which was found to be unsatisfactory because it was thought that the rules were too tight. The rules were relaxed, and obviously when rules are relaxed there is a great likelihood that the result will be to give more representation

to the scattered county areas and rather less to the borough areas. That was implicit in the change of instructions which we made at the instance of the Government nearly two years ago. Last October the Boundary Commission produced their report. That report did not please us, but apparently it pleased the Government, or at any rate sufficiently so for them to state that they were willing to take the rough with the smooth from their point of view, just as we were willing to take the rough with the smooth from our point of view. That attitude persisted through the time of the drafting of the Bill and the Second Reading, and it was only on 19th March that we were made aware that the Government had discovered an objection. It is true that they had apparently discovered it in private a little earlier and had taken steps accordingly, but there is a long time from October to March.
What was the precise objection which the Government discovered? If it was a general objection that the Boundary Commission Report was wrong because the average county quota was too far below the average borough quota, then the proper course was to make a remit appropriate to that objection. That meant a very extensive if not complete re-examination of the whole position. That was not what the right hon. Gentleman did. He picked out 17 particular instances. The only reason for picking out 17 particular instances is because there is some more limited principle which affects that 17. We were a little sceptical, but we thought that if this were really genuine, though the Government had taken rather a long time to discover the so-called new principle, we would accept it. However, the objection was not a general one obviously at that stage. Their objection appeared to be a particular one, and we were very loath to come to the conclusion that the real reason that induced the Government to act was not one of principle at all but one of party advantage.
Therefore, we took the Government at their word and we said, "Very well, if you have chosen these 17 constituencies because there is a principle of limited application which you want to introduce, that principle, if it is a principle at all, cannot be limited in its application to 17 constituencies." We said, for reasons which my right hon. Friend the Member


for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has already given, which others have expanded and which I will not repeat, "Let us take the Government at their word. Let us assume this is a principle discovered at a late stage, and that it is intended to apply the principle fairly now that it is apparently Government policy." On those grounds we added by way of argument, "We have not too much time—had we had longer time we should have discovered more—but we have discovered seven instances which apparently are covered by this new principle and we put them forward with this new proposal in view."
6.45 p.m.
We went to the Boundary Commission and the Commission were not enthusiastic with regard to two of them. We said then, "Very well, we are practical people, practical considerations must prevail over theoretical ideas. We will drop these two." In regard to the other five, however, the Boundary Commission were entirely on our side. If the details, which have been put to this House during the last hour or two, are looked at, it will be found that there is no more splitting of local government areas or no more geographical difficulties than there are in the 100 other constituencies which the Boundary Commission have passed. The Boundary Commission applied their ordinary criteria to these seven cases and five passed while two did not. It is no good the Home Secretary saying that there are certain practical objections to these five constituencies. These objections did not prevail with the Boundary Commission and if, indeed, objections of a like character were taken they would upset zoo of the new constituencies. Therefore, I am entitled to say that if the right hon. Gentleman's principle justifies nine new seats in the cities it justifies even more the five cases which we are now discussing, that is, of course, if it is a principle at all.
I go even further. If we look at the figures—I will not weary the House with them—in the nine cities, there are averages of 52,000 and 53,000; in these five constituencies the average is the same. It is true that in one or two of the cities, the average is higher, but there are a number of the cities where the average is almost identical with the average of the five

constituencies which have passed the Boundary Commission.
That having been demonstrated, the right hon. Gentleman has not, apart from these detailed objections of which the Boundary Commission have already disposed, met the case. I am not sure what he meant to tell us a little time ago, but I understood that he did tell us that the so-called principle which he enunciated when he was justifying the nine new city constituencies was not the teal point at all. The point was quite a different one. The point was, "I am determined to get more representation for the boroughs and I do not care how I do it." I have said that the right hon. Gentleman did not care how he did it, because if he did care he would have had a general remit to the Boundary Commission after consultation with this., House, away back last November to deal with this new point of principle. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is constantly shifting his ground.
First of all, in October he agreed to take the rough with the smooth. We were at one with him then. He then came forward in March and April with proposals based upon the new principle. In effect, what the right hon. Gentleman said was that where there were large adjacent constituencies which could be divided into one more to get the average of something over 50,000, and where that could be done with the practical compliance of geographical and local government considerations, then it should be done. That is what we were told a couple of months ago. We took him at his word and he shifts his ground again. Now he comes to the decision that we must have greater equality between the borough and the county quotas. Is that an afterthought or is it his real ground of principle? Has he had two afterthoughts? Did that principle of bringing the quotas nearer together occur to him before these Amendments were on the paper? If it is a genuine point it was equally as obvious last November as it is today and there were ways then of dealing with it in a proper way.
I am bound to say that I have the greatest difficulty, little as I like the alternative, in reconciling my mind to the view that there is any principle whatever behind the right hon. Gentleman's action. What has happened is perfectly plain, and


it is as well that it should be made plain to the country. The right hon. Gentleman quite properly took the view, "I will take the rough with the smooth." He was overruled by his back benchers. Against his better judgment he agreed to bring in these additional seats. It must be against his better judgment because he is an expert in these matters, and if he had intended to do it he would have done it in the original Bill, or he would have sent the matter back to the Boundary Commissioners at a much earlier stage. Against his better judgment he surrenders to his back benchers. I have less hesitation in saying that as it is not the first time he has had to do that.

Mr. Nigel Birch: And will not be the last.

Mr. Reid: I am very sorry for the right hon. Gentleman. He is trying, so far as I can see, to conduct with justice and equity the affairs for which he is responsible, but he is not allowed to do so.

Mr. Birch: He does not resign.

Mr. Reid: I am not dealing with what is the proper course for the right hon. Gentleman to follow. What I am doing at the moment is to expose what is really behind the right hon. Gentleman's attitude today. Against his better judgment he was compelled to give a number of extra seats to his back benchers. I suppose that they thought that there was a party advantage in it; otherwise it is difficult to see why they did it. At least that is how it happened.
Having been compelled, against his better judgment, it is not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman has found considerable difficulty in finding a plausible reason for the change, and having found one reason, and that reason being applied by our Amendment, he then has to turn to another one. If that were the true reason he would have had to act quite differently throughout last autumn and winter from the way he has done. Every one of these five cases has been justified on its merits, because, after all, the Boundary Commission are the people who decide these matters, and these five cases comply with the two essentials of the right hon. Gentleman's principle, if it was a principle, which he stated in the spring of this year. They comply with the requirements

that the Boundary Commissioners shall accept the proposal as practicable and they comply with exactly the same requirements with which the right hon. Gentleman has complied in the case of his 17 new constituencies. There is no difference between them.
I do not think it is open to the right hon. Gentleman now to say, "I do not like the details of these new constituencies." That, I think, has been decided for him by the Boundary Commission. Whether it has or not, he has really not put forward any substantial objection. The only objections which he has put forward are objections which, as I say, would have been equally applicable to a great many other of the Boundary Commission's representations. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is faced with this choice: either he has to accept the principle which he himself formulated in connection with the nine city seats and accept these Amendments, or he has to say what is really the reason. I agree that the eight divisions of boroughs are in a slightly different position, and I do not think they are so relevant in the present connection. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the reason was the general reason that it is desired to bring the quotas nearer together he is usurping the functions of the Boundary Commission because it was their job to carry out that instruction, if that was a genuine instruction.
What has really happened is that these principles are invented to justify the surrender to a political move by the right hon. Gentleman's supporters behind him. I do not think that it makes it any better for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "Of course, this is not the sort of thing I would have done if I had been left to my own devices, but I had to do it, and please do not be too hard on me," because that is the only defence if he does not accept these Amendments. Therefore, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that at least one of the principles which he has put forward in the course of these Debates is to be regarded as a real principle.

Mr. Ede: I can speak again only by leave of the House because I spoke immediately after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), although I should have preferred,


as I said at the time, to reserve my remarks for the present stage of the Debate when I had heard the whole discussion justifying the five constituencies which the right hon. Member for North Leeds now asks the House to place upon the statute book. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) suggested that what I said this afternoon about bringing about a lesser disparity between the borough and county constituencies was something I had not previously mentioned. I am very loath to quote my own speeches. They are dreary enough to utter, and I have never yet had the pluck to read them through consecutively, but on 24th March, 1948, that was exactly the point I placed before the House when I justified the creation of 17 new borough constituencies.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Had not the right hon. Gentleman thought of that before the Bill was introduced?

Mr. Ede: I am bound to say that from the first, when I looked at the figures in regard to this Measure, I came to the conclusion that the disparity between the the boroughs and the counties needed a great deal of explanation. I came to the conclusion, after full consideration, before the Committee stage of the Bill, that it was desirable to take steps to reduce the disparity between boroughs and counties, and I so stated on 24th March. Therefore, there is nothing new in that contention today.
I share to some extent the views of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that part of the difficulty which confronted the Boundary Commissioners and which has since confronted everybody has been the fact that there are too few Members allowed to England and Wales in this Bill. I have no doubt that in some future re-distribution something will have to be done to bring about a lessening of the disproportionate representation of the three parts of Great Britain in this House. I am quite certain of that. That, however, is not a matter which can be dealt with at the present time in the Bill, but for what it is worth I place it on record.
In my earlier speech I had to deal with the five counties in connection with which action was proposed by the right hon.

Member for North Leeds. I should have preferred to wait until I heard the cases, such as they could be, developed in support of each of them. I have now had the advantage of having listened to them, and I am bound to say that nothing I have heard alters in my mind the view I took of them when I spoke earlier. I therefore cannot commend this Amendment to the House. I think that, merely by taking corners of counties to deal with, the Opposition have not, in fact, followed the same procedure as did the Government, where we took the whole of large units. For this reason, in addition to those which I gave in detail when I spoke previously, I am not prepared to accept the Amendment.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I think that my hon. Friends, though disappointed by the answer of the Home Secretary, will not be very much surprised by it, because what we have known throughout about this proposal was that it was a racket, in order to get 17 extra seats for the Government. It had no other reason of any sort whatever behind it. The right hon. Gentleman said just now, in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) that he stated his views on 24th March. But, of course, that was after he had been forced to take that position by his own back benchers. There is no great merit in confessing his failure to preserve his honour by saying that he only did it when he had capitulated.
There is a very clear principle involved in all this, which is that the boundaries of constituencies should be laid down by an impartial Boundary Commission, acting in accordance with legislation, if possible agreed by this House, but in any case acting impartially according to Acts passed by this House. That is what has always happened hitherto. What happened in this case was, as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) said, simply a piece of log rolling. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), saw a chance of getting the rabble together. He got them together, and the right hon. Gentleman was forced to do something which he knows is wholly dishonourable.
We had an interesting instance last night of how hon. Members opposite look upon these matters. When the hon. Member


for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) was speaking on the subject of university representation he said that the honour of Ministers is a side issue. That is how he thinks of them. Surely, the simple answer to these things is that if Ministers are pledged to do things, and if they think it is dishonourable to break those pledges, they should resign. What the right hon. Gentleman has said was, "They have voted me down." Many Ministers have been voted down in the past on a question

of principle, but those who have some regard to what is right, and to their own honour, have said, "If I am voted down I will go." The lesson here is that no Socialist Minister ever resigns unless he is thrown out of the window, however much dirt he has to swallow.

Question put "That '613' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 127.

Division No. 226.]
AYES.
[7.5 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Durbin, E. F. M.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Dye, S.
Leslie, J. R.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lever, N. H.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Levy, B. W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lindgren, G. S.


Attewell, H. C.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lipson, D. L.


Austin, H. Lewis
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Logan, D. G.


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Longden, F.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Ewart, R.
Lyne, A. W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Fairhurst, F.
McAdam, W.


Balfour, A.
Fernyhough, E.
McEntee, V. La T.


Barstow, P. G.
Follick, M.
McGhee, H. G.


Barton, C.
Forman, J. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Battley, J. R.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKinlay, A. S.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Benson, G.
Gallacher, W.
McLeavy, F.


Beswick, F.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Gilzean, A.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bing, G. H. C.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Binns, J.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Blenkinsop, A.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Blyton, W. R.
Grey, C. F.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Bottomley, A. G.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Marquand, H. A.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Bramall, E. A.
Gunter, R. J.
Mellish, R. J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Guy, W. H.
Mikardo, Ian


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hardy, E. A.
Monslow, W.


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Moody, A. S.


Burden, T. W.
Haworth, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Burke, W. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morley, R.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hicks, G.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Callaghan, James
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Horabin, T. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Champion, A. J.
House, G.
Mort, D. L.


Chater, D.
Hoy, J.
Moyle, A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Mulvey, A.


Cluse, W. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, J. D.


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Nally, W.


Collindridge, F.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Naylor, T. E.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Cove, W. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Crawley, A.
Janner, B.
Oldfield, W. H.


Daggar, G.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Oliver, G. H.


Daines, P.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Orbach, M.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Parkin, B. T.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Keenan, W.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kenyon, C.
Pearson, A.


Delargy, H. J.
King, E. M.
Peart, T. F.


Diamond, J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Perrins, W.


Dobbie, W.
Kinley, J.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Dodds, N. N.
Kirby, B. V.
Popplewell, E.


Donovan, T.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lang, G.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Price, M. Philips


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Proctor, W. T.




Pryde, D. J.
Snow, J. W.
Watson, W. M.


Pursey, Cmdr, H.
Solley, L. J.
Weitzman, D.


Randall, H. E.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Ranger, J.
Soskice, Sir Frank
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Rankin, J.
Steele, T.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Reeves, J.
Stross, Dr. B.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Stubbs, A. E.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Rhodes, H.
Sylvester, G. O.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Richards, R.
Symonds, A. L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wigg, George


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wilkins, W. A.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Royle, C.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Sargood, R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Scollan, T.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Tiffany, S.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Sharp, Granville
Timmons, J.
Wise, Major F. J.


Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Titterington, M. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Tolley, L.
Woods, G. S.


Shurmer, P.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wyatt, W.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Yates, V. F.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Simmons, C. J.
Viant, S. P.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Skeffington, A. M.
Walker, G. H.
Zilliacus, K.


Skinnard, F. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)



Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Warbey, W. N.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Watkins, T. E.
Mr. Hannon.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Osborne, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hollis, M. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Pickthorn, K.


Bennett, Sir P.
Howard, Hon. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Birch, Nigel
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Bowen, R.
Hurd, A.
Raikes, H. V.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Renton, D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Robinson, Roland


Byers, Frank
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Carson, E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Challen, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Scott, Lord W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Snadden, W. M.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Studholme, H. G.


Drayson, G. B.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Drewe, C.
McFarlane, C. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mackeson, Brig, H. R.
Teeling, William


Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Duthie, W. S.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Touche, G. C.


Eccles, D. M.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Wadsworth, G.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Harpies, A. E.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gammons, L. D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
York, C.


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G.



Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Odey, G. W.
Commander Agnew and




Major Ramsay.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out "include the words," and to insert "refer to the."
This is the first of the Amendments on the Paper which deal with the proposed new arrangements for the City of London


and adjoining constituencies. The House will know that in the Bill as it stands there is a constituency called the City of London which includes, in addition to the City, the Metropolitan Boroughs of Finsbury and Shoreditch. The arrangement by which the City, Finsbury and Shoreditch were joined in one constituency apparently found favour with none of the three participants in the partnership. Conversations have taken place, as I expressed a hope that they would, between the representatives of the City of London and certain adjoining Metropolitan Boroughs with a view to finding a solution more acceptable to all concerned.
7.15 p.m.
I had the privilege of meeting the representatives of the boroughs concerned and I want to pay a tribute to the way in which, when they were faced with the practical issue of what was to be done, they gave their minds to the various propositions with an absence of rancour and an effort to be constructive which was most helpful. I do not want it to be thought that they gladly accepted the arrangement which was finally adopted. In fact, I undertook to say to the House that they regarded it as the least objectionable of all the schemes placed in front of them. As I undertook to put it in that way, perhaps it will be understood that my tribute to the way in which they faced the issue is quite sincere.
The proposals, which will flow steadily through the Bill from this Amendment in a series of consequential Amendments, will result in the following final arrangement if all the Amendments are adopted. There will be a constituency to be known as the Cities of London and Westminster which will comprise the City of London and, the whole of the City of Westminster. It will have a total residential electorate, on the 1946 figures, of 78,516. There will be another constituency, Shoreditch and Finsbury, comprising those two Metropolitan Boroughs with an electorate of 56,764. In addition, there was the problem of what was to be done with Chelsea after the arrangement now in the Bill whereby Chelsea and Westminster were to be united and then divided into two, one constituency consisting of a part of the City of Westminster and the other consisting of the Borough of Chelsea and the remainder of the City of Westminster.
The whole of the City of Westminster now being with London, we should have been left with Chelsea with rather fewer than 40,000 electors. The representatives of the Royal Borough of Kensington took part in the discussions. They agreed that from the South Division of the Royal Borough of Kensington there should be taken the Brompton ward which should be added to Chelsea. The new Chelsea constituency, which will consist of the Borough of Chelsea and the Brompton ward of the Royal Borough of Kensington, will have a total electorate of 48,576. The deduction of the Brompton ward from South Kensington will leave that constituency with 58,618 electors. The Parliamentary constituency of North Kensington, with an electorate of 51,547, will remain unchanged.
This arrangement was reached at a conference in which the Members of Parliament concerned and the representatives of the City and the various Metropolitan boroughs were also present. The decision to accept this arrangement on the basis that I have stated as being the least objectionable of all the proposals that have been considered, was adopted at that conference without a dissentient. I commend this arrangement to the House and, once again, I thank those who participated in the discussions for the good temper which prevailed throughout.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be a geographical nexus between the City of London and the City of Westminster?

Mr. Ede: The existing constituencies of the City of London and the City of Westminster adjoin one another.

Mr. Assheton: I should like to say, on behalf of the senior Member for the City of London and myself, that we are grateful to the Home Secretary for having stated so clearly and precisely the arrangements which have now been made. I wish to make it clear once again, as my right hon. Friend has already made it clear, that the City of London still maintains the point of view that it should have separate representation in this House, and looks forward to the day when that separate representation will be restored to it. As it has been made quite clear that this Government do not intend to do that, we acquiesce in the


suggestion now put forward by the Home Secretary that the Cities of London and Westminster should be united to form one constituency and that the City of London and the City of Westminster should both be completely within that constituency. It is quite clear to everyone that this arrangement is not agreeable either to London or to Westminster except as a pis aller, and it is as a pis aller that we accept it, looking forward to the day when what we think is an injustice will be redressed.

Commander Noble: I rise to ask the Home Secretary to reconsider for a moment the position of Chelsea, in particular with regard to the two Amendments concerning Chelsea which appear on the Order Paper. In the Bill, it was proposed to add three wards of St. George's, Westminster, to Chelsea, but, as a result of this Amendment, that proposal has gone by the board. It is now proposed to add one ward to Chelsea from the Royal Borough of Kensington.
In Committee, when we were debating an Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), the Home Secretary said that he could not contemplate—that was the word he used—a borough constituency of 39,000, but what has happened since then? He has not only contemplated a borough constituency of 40,000—that is North Battersea, a very near neighbour of Chelsea—but has also contemplated 15 others between 40,000 and 44,000, seven of which, in addition to North Battersea, are in London. I ask the Home Secretary if he will recall for a moment what the Boundary Commission said about these new boroughs, notably Battersea, Hammersmith and Paddington. I quote what they said in Paragraph 19 of their report:
In our view, however, the position of these boroughs does not justify special treatment which we felt unable to accord to the others.
A few lines above that, they referred to Chelsea and Westminster, and they said:
We felt unable, however, consistently with the course we had adopted elsewhere, to recommend the retention of either borough as a separate Parliamentary borough.
I am not quite sure whether the metaphor "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" is perhaps the right one

to use here, but I do ask, in that connection, whether the Home Secretary will not give the position of Chelsea another thought. I feel that further evidence is given in Appendix A to the Boundary Commission's Report, in paragraph 5 of which it is stated:
(1) So far as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules:—
(iii) no Metropolitan borough or any part thereof shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other Metropolitan borough.
That is exactly what is going to happen here. A small part of South Kensington is to be added to the borough of Chelsea. I ask the Home Secretary whether it is really worth while taking away about 10,000 voters from South Kensington to give to Chelsea the necessary few hundreds to bring it to the total of North Battersea, and, perhaps, into the realm of "contemplation," especially when, in fact, those few hundreds under the 1947 register actually now exist?
The right hon. Gentleman should not think for one moment that I am objecting to this proposal. Chelsea did not object in any way to the original proposals in the Bill when it was proposed to add some of the St. George's division, nor does it object to this addition of part of South Kensington. I do, however, ask the Home Secretary to reconsider this matter, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) will agree with what I have said.

Mr. Richard Law: I should like to reinforce the plea made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) that the Home Secretary should reconsider that part of the Amendment which deals with the respective electorates of South Kensington and Chelsea. I accept, of course, what the Home Secretary said about the agreement which we came to at that meeting at the Home Office. He is quite right in saying that neither I, as the Member for South Kensington, nor any of the municipal representatives there with me, dissented from the proposal that is now put forward, but the right hon. Gentleman did say just now that we all agreed to that proposal as being the least objectionable of any alternative put before us. It was certainly on that basis that we agreed to it, but it seems to me


on reflection that there is another alternative which was less objectionable and which was not, in fact, open to discussion at that meeting, but which it is now within the power of the Home Secretary to put forward of his own volition, if he should think it wise to do so.
That alternative is that the borough of Chelsea should remain as a municipal and Parliamentary borough with its boundaries co-terminous, and that the Royal Borough of Kensington should also remain as a municipal and Parliamentary borough also with its boundaries coterminous. I ask the Home Secretary to reflect on what this proposal means for 10,000 voters in the Brompton Ward of South Kensington. Naturally, local feeling and local patriotism is involved, and, having had an association with the royal borough all their lives, my constituents in the Brompton Ward are not anxious to be transferred to the borough of Chelsea for Parliamentary and London County Council purposes. Quite apart from any feelings they may have, they are, in fact, going to be put to a great deal of inconvenience, and there is going to be a very great deal of confusion. The obvious difficulty, as I am sure the Home Secretary appreciates, is that while for Parliamentary elections and London County Council elections they will be part of Chelsea, for municipal elections they will remain part of the Royal Borough of Kensington, and that will put them in a situation which, I am sure, will prove to be extremely confusing for them.
7.30 p.m.
I hope the Home Secretary will consider this point again, if he possibly can, because there is no question, of course, of any party advantage, one side or the other, arising from it. It is true that the 10,000 voters of my constituency in the Brompton Ward have voted Conservative in the past, but if the Home Secretary wants to punish them for that he will not do it by this method, because they will continue to vote Conservative in the future under the new arrangements. Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea, I have been rather baffled by the phrase which the Home Secretary used when we debated this general issue on a previous occasion. He said he could not contemplate an electorate of 39,000. He did not explain to the House—or to the Committee, as it then was—why he could

not contemplate it, and I think he should now give the House the reasons which put this proposal altogether outside the bounds of contemplation.
It is extremely difficult to see why he cannot contemplate an electorate of 39,000 when he not only contemplated, but created an electorate of 40,000. I should have thought it would have been possible for him to stretch the odd few hundreds to meet a situation of this kind inside the metropolitan area of London. I suppose the Home Secretary bases his action upon the report of the Boundary Commission. It is perfectly true that the Boundary Commission considered the question of giving Chelsea separate representation and then turned it down, but in the same paragraph as that in which they turned down the question of separate representation for Chelsea, they also turned down the proposal that these seven or eight other boroughs should have their Parliamentary representation doubled. I suggest that it is unreasonable for the Home Secretary to take his stand on one part of the paragraph when he is flouting the recommendations of the Boundary Commission in the other part of the paragraph, and that seems to me to be a reason why he might reasonably consider the proposal which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea has put to him.
I want to add this further point: when the Boundary Commission had its new terms of reference, when the Act of 1944 was superseded by the Act of 1947, I think the main difference was that under the new Act and their new terms of reference they were very specifically instructed to consider municipal local boundaries and they were given a freedom to do so which they did not have in their original terms of reference. I think the Home Secretary will agree that that was the main difference between the two terms of reference. That being so, surely a very strong case indeed is created when we have two historically important boroughs like the Royal Borough of Kensington and the borough of Chelsea, observing as far as possibly can be observed, the main recommendation not of the Boundary Commission, but of Parliament to the Boundary Commission, that these local boundaries should be observed. It seems to me extremely rigid on the part of the


Home Secretary if he really says that, because of a matter of only a few hundred votes on a register which is out of date, he has to take this action in these two boroughs.
I quite see that if there were a very considerable number of votes involved it would be impossible and impracticable for the Home Secretary to go back on the attitude he has taken up, but if he compares the position of Chelsea with the position of the other five London boroughs which are dealt with in the report of the Boundary Commission he will see that, in fact, the position of Chelsea is entirely different. Chelsea had an electorate of 39,177 when the rough working quota of the Boundary Commission was 40,000—only a few hundreds out. Holborn has 19,000, Shoreditch 31,000, Stoke Newington 32,000, and Finsbury 25,000. In cases of that kind, where the gap is a very wide one, I can see the Home Secretary's point, but in the case of Chelsea, where the gap is only a very narrow one indeed, amounting to a few hundreds, I suggest to him that he might reconsider this matter and see whether he could not, in fact, allow it to continue with its Parliamentary boundaries unaltered.

Mr. Keeling: Although the last Amendment, rejected just now, for increasing the total number of Members by five had nothing whatever to do with London, I understand you have decided, Sir, not to call any further Amendments which would increase the number of Members. Of course I am bound by that Ruling but I must say I regret it very much because it had been the intention of the Members for the City of London and the City of Westminster and myself to move an Amendment to give two Members to the Cities of London and Westminster instead of one.
The announcement which the Home Secretary has just made reduces the representation of the new constituency, the combined Cities of London and Westminster, from four, as it is at the present moment, to one. The total number of electors on the 1946 Register—excluding, of course, the business vote—was 78,516, which means that the new constituency will be one of the largest in the country. In view of the immense importance of the two Cities it seems utterly wrong that their representation should be based

purely on a numerical basis. The City of London, the commercial and financial centre of this country, and the City of Westminster, the seat of Government of this country and of the Empire, deserve better treatment than to have only one Member between them. I deeply deplore the decision of the Government.

Mr. Howard: May I support the plea which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law)? It seems to me that in this case all that is between the Home Secretary and complete agreement with the hon. Members for those two boroughs is a hypothetical 820 electors, in that today the present electorate, under the 1946 Register, is 820 below the Home Secretary's figure—and that is a hypothetical figure. Actually, the number of electors today is more than 2,000 over the 40,000 which the Home Secretary has in view.
I agree that he cannot work all of his constituencies on entirely different bases, but here is one case where there seems to be strong grounds for stretching a point in order to preserve the local authorities' boundaries and to preserve a very ancient and honourable metropolitan borough.
I want to say a word or two about the position as it affects my own city, the City of Westminster. I want to thank the Home Secretary for the way he has put to the House the decisions to which he has come following the conference, and for making it perfectly clear that those decisions were not suggested to him by representatives of the various boroughs and constituencies concerned, but were only rather grudgingly accepted after he had made it perfectly clear that, in his judgment, there was no hope of their getting what they considered a reasonable representation. In my judgment these suggestions of the Home Secretary do not give reasonable representation.
Here was a meeting of these four central municipalities, the Cities of London and Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington and of Chelsea. They came together to try to see if they could not get over this difficulty. They put certain proposals to the Home Secretary which would have meant having five constituencies with an average electorate of something over 47,000, excluding the business vote. If the


business vote had been included—and it was included in all the other cases—the average electorate would have been 49,000. Even excluding the business vote, the average electorate for the five constituencies, two in Kensington, one in Chelsea, and two in the Cities of London and Westminster—would have been over 47,000. What do we find are the figures in the immediately adjoining constituencies, Battersea, Hammersmith and Paddington, South, West and North of them? The highest electorate of any of the neighbouring ones is 43,700, and the average of the immediately adjoining constituencies, which the Home Secretary is recommending, is well under 43,00.
While he puts forward his recommendation, he is not prepared to recommend this House to agree to representation for these five central constituencies which would give them an average electorate of something over 47,000. It really is an astonishing decision, and while I am grateful to the Home Secretary for having put as fairly as he has the nature of the discussions which took place at the conference, I think that it is only fair to the House that they should know that there were proposals put before him which would have been infinitely more reasonable.

Mr. Ede: By the leave of the House, I would say that this conference was held a month ago. As far as I know, only one person present in the House now who was present at the conference has not spoken. I do not know whether I should have had a little support from him, if he had spoken, for the scheme I put in front of the House. However, we were faced with very great difficulties. I regret that the point made so emphatically by the right hon. Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) was not put with anything like that force at the conference.

Commander Noble: I did put that point.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Gentleman put the point with regard to Chelsea. I do not recollect that he said anything about South Kensington. The alternative to this is to go back to what is in the Bill. I understood that what was in the Bill was thoroughly objectionable to all concerned, and that they desired to get away from it. I said—and I reiterate the

statement—I could not contemplate a constituency in England with an electorate in 1946 of less than 40,000, because—and let us be certain of this—if one were to give way once on a point like that, there would surely be other places discovered which would come within the same rule. I should have thought that that would have been made clear by the discussions of the last three months.

Mr. Law: Does the Home Secretary know of any other cases? In the London boroughs no question of that kind arises, because they are so far below 40,000.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: No, I do not know of them; but I am quite certain, from the facts that have been brought to my notice with regard to every alteration that has been made in the Bill, that if this alteration were made, by the end of this week I should know of more than one case. The right hon. Gentleman made his point. I regret, as I did at the conference, that I cannot meet the various points put forward. I accepted the arrangement that was reached there. I do not think that anyone who was there can say that I have unfaithfully reported the spirit that prevailed. I am bound to say that, although I said that I could not prevent hon. Gentlemen from raising the matter in the House, if I had thought that every one of them was going to raise it, I am very doubtful whether I should have thought it worth while to come away from the meeting feeling I ought to put the arrangement in front of the House. I want to thank them and their municipalities for the way they met me, and I very much regret I cannot meet the point that has been made with regard to the future of the borough of Chelsea.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Registration officers and areas.)

Amendment made: In page 4, leave out lines 38 and 39.—[Mr. Ede.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Registers of electors.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, to leave out from "who," to "shall," in line 21, and to insert "has a service qualification."
This Amendment and a number of others that follow deal with the question that has been raised several times in the


House by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). We had a discussion on it during the Committee stage, and when we had seen all that would be involved in accepting the principle, I was able to say that between then and the Report stage I would, in consultation with the hon. Gentleman, see if it were possible to do something to meet the situation which he had been bringing before the House for a considerable length of time.

Mr. Speaker: It might be convenient if we took in a general discussion with this Amendment, the consequential Amendments. I suggest that course, if the House agrees.

Mr. Ede: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This group of Amendments is intended to replace Clause 70, extending the franchise to Crown servants abroad and their wives, and to give full effect to its intention. They will also extend the franchise to the wives of Service voters who reside outside, the United Kingdom to be with their husbands. That last is a point which, I know, has been troubling Servicemen and their wives, and I am very glad to be able to meet them.
The Amendment which immediately follows this one in Clause 6, page 7, line r, provides that the classes of Crown servants who are to be given the Service qualification are to be prescribed by regulation. My intention is to include all the classes covered by the words "service in respect of which payment is made out of moneys provided by Parliament," now found in Clause 70. It seems best to prescribe them by regulation, so as to make sure that all the appropriate classes are covered, and are clearly set out without ambiguity, and so also as to provide a measure of flexibility for the future. It may be necessary at some time in the future to delete some of the descriptions or to add others. I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham will feel that the Amendments that we have managed to put on the Paper carry out in the spirit as well as in the letter the undertaking that I gave. I am pleased to be able to ensure that the group of people concerned, those who are temporarily abroad on their country's service, should be able to retain active citizenship of this country.

Mr. Keeling: I agree with the Home Secretary that the Amendments give effect

to what we desire. I feel bound to point out, however, that during the long period he mentioned, during which this extension of the franchise has been pressed upon his attention, it was not only received unsympathetically by him but was very strongly opposed by the Labour Members of the Committee on Electoral Registration which he appointed. The Amendments will not only restore to the staffs of the Control Commission in Germany and Austria the vote which they had at the last General Election—the Bill proposed to take it away from them—but it will give a vote for the first time to other civil servants abroad and to their wives. It also gives a vote, as the Home Secretary has said, and again for the first time, to the wives of members of the Fighting Forces abroad.
There was no reason for refusing a vote to any of these people once it was given to the Fighting Forces. But the thousands of British men and women who will be enfranchised by these Amendments will owe their enfranchisement to the insistent pressure of the Tory Party who, in this as in so many other matters, have proved themselves much more democratic than the Labour Party.

Mr. Donovan: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but as the other Labour Member of the Electoral Committee is not here, I wish to dissent from what has been said by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) that Labour Members of that committee strongly opposed this proposal. I did not. What happened was that the hon. Member for Twickenham put forward this proposal on the basis that because the people concerned paid Income Tax they should get the vote. He wanted the test of the suffrage to be the liability to pay Income Tax. He will remember that I pointed out to him in rather a long letter that that principle would be unworkable and—

Mr. Keeling: Has the hon. and learned Member read the minority report of the committee? He will find that that report was not based in the very least upon Income Tax. The words "Income Tax" were never mentioned at all.

Mr. Donovan: Because the hon. Member for Twickenham withdrew his first draft Minority Report after receiving my letter.

Mr. Keeling: Did the hon. and learned Member oppose the Tory Members' recommendation that these civil servants should have the vote, or did he support it? I leave the House to judge the answer from the committee's report.

Mr. McKinlay: From what the Home Secretary said, I understood that he proposes to deal with this matter by regulation, and that therefore the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) is dealing with something which does not arise. Can we have an assurance from the Home Secretary that servant girls and male servants who are serving with civil servants abroad, and who are natives of this country, will have their votes safeguarded in the same way as their masters and mistresses? If civil servants take servants abroad with them from this country it is only right that the voting rights of those servants should be safeguarded. I should like that information from the Home Secretary. We know the pressure that is brought to bear by masters and mistresses at election times. The servants know full well that they are threatened with the loss of their employment if the wicked Socialists get in, but many of them are willing to take the risk. I want an assurance from the Home Secretary that, in framing the regulations—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is having a very interesting conversation on the Front Bench but I am asking him a question—he will safeguard the voting rights of the people I have mentioned equally with the voting rights of their masters and mistresses.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Amendment pro posed, in page—

Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order. Am I not entitled to have at least an acknowledgment from the Home Secretary that a request has been made from this side of the House for his consideration?

Mr. Ede: I can only speak again by leave of the House. I do not think it will be possible for me to include in the regulations the class of person to whom my hon. Friend has alluded. I will, however, consider whether it is possible to do so. If not, the point should be considered during the passage of the Bill elsewhere.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Service declarations.)

Amendments made: In page 7, line 1, leave out from the beginning, to "may," in line 3, and insert:
(1) The following persons shall have a service qualification for the purpose of this Act, namely,—

(a)any person who on the qualifying date is a member of the forces;
(b)any person who on that date is employed in the service of the Crown in a post outside the United Kingdom of any prescribed class or description;
(c)any woman who on that date is the wife of a person having a service qualification and is residing outside the United Kingdom to be with her husband;

so, however, that where a person leaves the United Kingdom to take up employment or residence as aforesaid or returns to the United Kingdom at the end of such employment or residence, the employment or residence shall be deemed to begin from the time of leaving or to continue until the time of returning, as the case may be
(2) A service declaration shall be made only by a person who has a service qualification or, subject to any prescribed conditions, by a person about to leave the United Kingdom in such circumstances as to acquire a service qualification.
(3) A service declaration

In line 13, leave out from "for," to "would," and insert:
the circumstances entitling him to make the declaration.

Leave out lines 16 and 17, and insert:
(d) such particulars (if any) as may be prescribed of the declarant's identity and service qualification.

In line 19, leave out "member of the forces," and insert:
person having a service qualification.

Leave out lines 33 and 34, and insert:
had from the date of the declaration or such later date if any as appears therefrom, and as continuing to have, a service qualification.

In page 8, line 2, leave out "remains a member of the forces," and insert:
has a service qualification, except in so far as regulations provide that it shall cease to be in force on a change in the circumstances giving the service qualification.

In line 5, leave out "a member of the forces," and insert:
authorised so to do by subsection (2) of this Section.

In line 13, leave out from "to," to end of line 4, and insert:
any particulars required by regulations under this Section."—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Polling districts and polling Places.)

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, to leave out:
in the absence of special circumstances.
I think I can deal with this Amendment very quickly because we have already had some discussion on the subject.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think it would be useful if at the same time we dealt with the next two Amendments: In line 38, at end, insert:
unless it appears to the local authority that the combination of two or more parishes or parts of parishes in one electoral division will not materially affect the convenience of the electors or any body of them.
And in line 38, at end, insert:
unless it appears to the local authority or the returning officer, as the case may be, that such an arrangement is unnecessary in order to meet the reasonable requirements of the electors or any body of them.

Mr. Amory: I am obliged. I was about to make the same suggestion, as all three Amendments deal with the same proposal. We do not think the words "in the absence of special circumstances" are very satisfactory. They do not seem to us to be very clear in indicating the kind of circumstances which would make necessary an exception from the provisions of this part of the Clause. The primary consideration must be the convenience of the electors, and the more polling stations there can be the better. However, we must also take into consideration what is practically possible, and I think it will be agreed that some exceptions from the provisions that there should be a polling station in every parish will be necessary.
If there were no exceptions, in the case of a very rural county there would be an enormous increase in the number of polling stations. For instance, I believe that in Warwickshire it would mean an increase of in polling stations, and I believe in the case of the North Riding of Yorkshire 372 additional polling stations. There are in Warwickshire 28 parishes with under 50 electors and six parishes with under 10 electors, and in the North Riding there are 115 parishes with under 50 and eight parishes with under 10 electors.
Of course, there will arise the problem whether it will be possible to provide sufficient presiding officers, polling clerks, all the other people who are necessary, and buildings; but, in any case, I think the Home Secretary will agree that there will be cases where it will be more convenient not to have a polling station in a particular parish, and that it will be more convenient to the electors there to register their votes in a neighbouring parish. We want to provide as much flexibility as possible here, so that it shall be possible for the best and most convenient arrangement to be made in the interests of the electors. We suggest that if this Amendment were adopted, and if one of the next two Amendments, which are really alternatives, were also adopted, the result would be more satisfactory than it would be with the inclusion of the words which we seek to omit.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I do not think there is very much between us on this point. I recognise that the words "special circumstances," which crop up in a good many Sections of different Statutes and so cause argument, are rather vague. On the other hand, I feel that the alternatives suggested tend to give rather more latitude to county councils not to have a separate polling district in each rural parish than the words "in the absence of special circumstances" would give them.
I am not sure that I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) when he said that we should have as much flexibility as possible. I think it has been the experience that some county councils, which already have a duty to give to all electors in their constituencies such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances, have hitherto taken a rather narrow view of that, and it was agreed at the Speaker's Conference that adequate facilities had not been provided in very many areas. We therefore attach a good deal of importance to this Clause, and we want to ensure that the onus is very much upon the county council to be satisfied that there are special circumstances which would justify the failure to comply with what we intend to be the general rule.
It is really very little more than a matter of emphasis, but I submit that either of the two alternatives in the second and third of the Amendments which we are discussing rather tend to put the onus the other way. They suggest that unless there is some special reason for having a separate polling district in each parish it will be quite in order to leave things as they are. It is only a question of emphasis, but I prefer the words which are in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 8.—(Place and manner of voting as elector.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 10, line 41, to leave out "or," and to insert:
(vi) at a general election.
This is a drafting Amendment. The drafting of the Clause as it exists was criticised in Committee, and this is simply a splitting up of the paragraph to meet those criticisms.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Proxies.)

Amendment made: In page 14, line 6, leave out "who have appointed proxies," and insert:
for whom proxies have been appointed.—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Place and manner of voting as proxy.)

Amendment made: In page 14, leave out lines 29 to 31.—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 12.—(Timetable and procedure.)

Amendment made: In page 15, line 44, leave out from "that," to end of line 46, and insert:
the election was so conducted as to be substantially in accordance with the law as to elections and that the act or omission did not affect its result."—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, in page 15, line 46, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where it is found, on scrutiny, that the number of ballot papers not bearing the official mark would be sufficient to entitle an otherwise unsuccessful candidate to be declared elected the election should be declared invalid.
I hope this Amendment will commend itself to all quarters of the House. There is no suggestion of any favour being done by this Amendment to either the Conservative

or the Socialist Party. I think every party on occasion has been faced at the end of an election with some very close results—majorities of five, four and even as low as one. Candidates declared unsuccessful have left the counting place with the knowledge that there was a batch of votes which, if they had been allowed, would have changed the result of the election, and would have meant that the candidate declared unsuccessful was actually successful. One batch of votes it may be, is spoiled simply because the polling clerk has failed, through accident at a rush time, or because of inexperience, or of neglect or carelessness, to stamp the polling card, with the result that, although it has been perfectly marked by the elector, it has been discounted in the original count. We feel that it contravenes all our claims that we seek to give full weight to the will of the majority, if, because of the error of an official, the result is changed.
Although one may say that the elector has an opportunity to draw the attention of the official to the fact that the card is not stamped, and although the fact that the official has failed to stamp the card may not have been noticed by the elector—

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: Some of them do not know.

Mr. Ross: I think that if we examine some of the other Clauses, we shall find that notices have to be put up in the polling stations in regard to this, but in the rush hour, or it may be from age or infirmity, electors may not have noticed it. From that point of view, I think it is unfair, because the discounting of that vote really means the discounting of several thousand votes.
Then there is the case of the absent voter and the Service voter. I know that this has happened because I experienced it at the General Election. These absent voters have no opportunity to draw to anyone's attention to the fact that the official mark is not on the card. It may be that if there was a re-scrutiny of the papers discounted because of the lack of the official mark, the result would be changed altogether. In our submission, we feel that it is only right in a case where there is a close contest, that there should be a re-scrutiny of voting papers discounted because of the lack of the official


mark, and that if it is found that that would vitally change the result, the election should be declared invalid. We, therefore, suggest to the Home Secretary and to the Secretary of State for Scotland that it would be much more democratic if instead of allowing these anomalies and this unsatisfactory condition to continue, he considered the change which we have suggested.

Mr. McKinlay: I beg to second the Amendment.
I want to impress on the Secretary of State for Scotland the absolute necessity of some safeguard. There is one right hon. Member of this House at the moment who would have arrived at his destination in 1935, had it not been for the fact that so many papers were spoiled because they were unstamped. I do not want to be ungenerous, but I have had much electioneering experience of things which happen—not accidentally, because unstamped papers always seem to emerge from the same type of polling station in the same district. To my mind it is the most scientific way of voting for your own personal inclination if one is a polling clerk and using other people's votes for that purpose.
The worst thing of which one can accuse a polling clerk is stupidity in marking papers ahead in anticipation of a rush, forgetting when the last stamped paper was issued, and to continue doing so. I have watched them from the gallery of a polling booth doing that. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) will remember the 1935 contest in Kelvingrove, where the shadow hung over both candidates for a long time, and my submission is that if it had not been for the number of unstamped papers which emerged from Finniston Street School, no recount would have been necessary. I hope that the Secretary of State, from a wide experience of electioneering in Scotland, will not blow a stepmother's breath on this proposal, but will give it the consideration which it merits, because we are satisfied that it is fair to all sides, and that where an election result has been determined by papers which had been unstamped, any reasonable person would agree that such an election should be declared invalid.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): We have a great deal of sympathy with the difficulty outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). As he says, I have had personal experience during the period he mentioned of what was certainly one of the most disgraceful elections I have ever come across in my life. It was very unfortunate for all the people involved that such an election should take place. Part of it was due to the fallibility of human beings, and there is no way in which we can safeguard elections against culpability or fallibility somewhere in the species from which presiding officers are drawn.
One of the difficulties in dealing with this matter is the reason for stamped papers. The reason is to ensure secrecy of the poll, and to prevent, if possible, any corruption or misuse of ballot papers. Therefore, in examining this matter, we have had to look into the question of whether we can do anything without opening the door to the misuse of ballot papers. If it is admitted that any kind of unstamped ballot paper can be counted, that does away with the whole prevention of corruption by making it possible on some occasion, for unstamped papers—not unstamped by mistake but left unstamped on purpose—to be inserted in the boxes, as was often suspected to be the case. Of course, the cure may be worse than the disease.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and I have looked carefully into this matter, and we have examined the question of whether in such a case a petition would be possible. We have come up against the problem of the law relating to petitions, which is not yet embodied in statute law, and which would require a great deal of research and investigation to make sure that it was sound. There has not been sufficient time in the interval since this matter was considered to make a very intricate investigation. So far as we can see, the law at the moment provides for a completely unsatisfactory election to be challenged by petition, although we recognise that under the present system, a petition can be extremely expensive, and in some cases almost prohibitive.
Nevertheless, we shall investigate this. I cannot say that it will be done


promptly, because of the complex nature of the necessary investigations; but if anything can be done which does not open the door to even worse complications, then the matter will be given sympathetic consideration, and we hope that eventually the law will be such as to satisfy the desires of my hon. Friends. The only certain way of avoiding unstamped papers is to have competent presiding officers. I know it is the ambition of every returning officer to have competent presiding officers, and I hope that with competent presiding officers, intelligent voters, and polling agents who are supervising what happens in the polling booths, a great deal of this can be minimised. I remember that the late George Hardy was defeated by unstamped ballot papers in Springburn. In future these offices will be filled by competent people, but I am sorry to have to ask the House to reject the Amendment at the moment.

Miss Herbison: The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that there could be ever so many mistakes, or that things might be worse than they are, if we were to ask that unstamped papers should be counted. Those sponsoring this Amendment make no such suggestion. All we ask is that if there are sufficient unstamped papers to make it possible that an unsuccessful candidate could have been successful, then that election should be declared invalid. The Secretary of State has given examples where this system has worked very unfairly against certain people in Scotland. I do not think his suggestion to have more competent officers will solve the problem. I do not want to cast aspersions, because I have no knowledge of these matters; but it is possible that these unstamped papers are left unstamped by very competent people, and for very obvious reasons. If this is to be considered in another place, then we who put down this Amendment feel very strongly that the Bill should not become an Act and go on to the Statute Book until we are absolutely certain that all elections are to be fair elections to every candidate.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 13.—(Effect of register, etc.)

Amendment made: In page 16, line 20, leave out from "ground "to "otherwise" in line 22, and insert:
that he is not a British subject or is not of full age or is otherwise subject to any legal incapacity to vote, or that on the qualifying date or the date of his appointment, as the case may be, he was not a British subject or was not of full age or was."—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 16.—(Returning officers.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 17, to leave out lines 35 and 36.
This and the following Amendment Pare consequential on the new arrangements for the City of London constituencies, which have already been discussed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 41, leave out "(other than the City of London)."—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 18.—(Payments by and to returning officer.)

Amendment made: In page 21, line 21, leave out from "in" to second "in" in line 25, and insert "a constituency in England."—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 21.—(Electors.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 24, line 9, after "any" to insert "rateable."
The explanation for this Amendment should be coupled with that of the Amendment in Clause 22, page 24, line 39, after "landlord" insert:
the expression 'rateable' means liable for the time being to be rated to the general rate or to any rate expressed by the Act creating it to be in the nature of a general rate, except that in relation to the City of London it means liable for the time being to be rated to the poor rate.
These Amendments are to ensure that where a person has a non-resident local government vote, on the broad grounds that a person who contributes to the rates is entitled to a vote, he shall only get it where, in fact, he is liable to pay rates. It was pointed out in Committee that the Bill as drafted might give this qualification to persons who were not, in fact, liable for rates. These two Amendments together will have the effect of altering that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page24, line 14, to leave out from "area" to the end of line 15, and to insert:
which are of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds and in respect of which rates are payable.
This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment just agreed to, and makes an alteration in the same sense in the Scottish Subsection.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE: 22.—(Residence, occupation, etc.)

Amendment made: In page 24, line 39, after "landlord" insert:
the expression 'rateable' means liable for the time being to be rated to the general rate or to any rate expressed by the Act creating it to be in the nature of a general rate, except that in relation to the City of London it means liable for the time being to be rated to the poor rate."—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page line 23, at the end to insert:

"(i) of a dwelling house let to him furnished for a term of less than nine weeks; or
(ii)."

This is very largely drafting, to bring Subsection (6), the Scottish Subsection, into line with Subsection (3).

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 23.—(Registration.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 26, line 8, after "that" to insert:

"(a) a person shall not be entitled to be registered more than once in any local government area; and
(b)"

Perhaps I might also discuss two later Amendments: In line 10, to leave out "electoral" and to insert "local government," and in line 25, to leave out "electoral" and to insert "local government." These Amendments again relate to the non-resident local government vote. It was pointed out in Committee that, although a person who has two qualifications in the same local government area will be prohibited from voting in respect of more than one of them at an ordinary election, he will not be prohibited from voting, in respect of different qualifications at successive casual elections in the same area. These Amendments are designed to meet this point by providing that a person shall not be entitled to be registered more than once in the same local government area. The Amendment in line 25 has the effect

that where a person has both a resident and a non-resident qualification in the same local government area he shall be registered in respect of the resident qualification only.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 26, line 8, leave out from "who," to "shall," in line 9, and insert "has a service qualification."

In line 10, leave out "electoral," and insert "local government."

In line 13, leave out "member of the forces," and insert "person having a service qualification."

In line 25, leave out "electoral," and insert "local government."—Mr. Younger.

CLAUSE 25.—(Place and manner of voting as elector.)

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page line 43, to leave out "or as nonresidents."
This Amendment can be taken together with the Amendment in line 36 and the Amendment to leave out lines 42 to 47. These Amendments have the effect of leaving out of the Clause the provisions enabling a person to vote by post at a local government election in respect of a non-resident qualification which is in a different area from the home address. The non-resident voter will be entitled to vote by post on any of the other grounds set out. This was subject to some discussion in Committee, and it was felt, on balance of reasonableness, that while it was right that this vote should continue in this form, if a non-resident voter had a close connection with the area in which he was not a resident, it would be no hardship for him to be without the right of a postal vote.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page27 line 34, at the end, to insert:
(3) Where—

(a)a person is registered at the same qualifying address both as a parliamentary and as a local government elector, and is not so registered as a service voter; and
(b) there is in force an appointment of a proxy to vote for him at parliamentary elections in respect of that registration, being an appointment based on the general nature of his occupation, service or employment;



then, in respect of that registration, at local government elections at which postal voting is allowed he shall be treated as an absent voter and may vote by proxy and not otherwise.
(4) Subject to the last foregoing Subsection
As the Bill now stands, Clause 8 (3) will enable a civilian elector to apply to vote by proxy at Parliamentary elections if he is likely to be unable to vote in person by reason of his occupation, service or employment, or of his service in the Reserve or Auxiliary Forces, and if in addition he is likely to be at sea or out of the United Kingdom on the date of the poll. An Amendment was moved by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) to make similar provision in respect of local government elections, but it was thought that to meet that in full in local government elections would be too difficult from the administrative point of view. My right hon. Friend said, however, that he would try to meet the position in respect of the resident voter, and this Amendment carries out that undertaking.
The effect is that where a civilian elector has had a proxy appointed for Parliamentary elections in respect of a resident qualification which is also a local government qualification, he may vote by that proxy and not otherwise at local government elections. The Amendment will apply only where the elector is entitled to vote as an absent voter by reason of the nature of his occupation, service or employment, and not, as at Parliamentary elections, where he is so entitled by reason of service in the Reserve or Auxiliary Forces. The reason for this distinction is that an absent voter application on the ground of service in the Reserve or Auxiliary Forces is to be made for a particular election only. If, therefore, civilians were allowed to vote by proxy on this ground at local government elections, it would be necessary to enable them to appoint proxies specially for local government elections. This would involve an administrative complication for which there appears to be insufficient justification having regard to the very small number of cases likely to be affected.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 27, line 36, to leave out from "section," to "may," in line 37.
The object of this Amendment is to enable the Service voter to vote by post at a local government election in the same way as at a Parliamentary election. As the Clause stands he has only the alternative of voting by proxy or in person.

Mr. Younger: There are considerable administrative difficulties about this. As I mentioned on the previous Amendment, a Service voter's application to vote by post must relate to a particular election. In Parliamentary elections the arrangement which operates whenever a vacancy occurs, or when a General Election is announced, is that all Service establishments in the United Kingdom are notified and the Service voters Register for the constituency concerned, or all the Service voters in the event of a General Election are invited to apply to the registration officer for postal ballot papers. It seems clear that such an administrative provision would be impracticable for local government by-elections.
In these circumstances, I do not think an important administrative measure like circulating all Service establishments should be undertaken for every vacancy. It is true that it would be less difficult in the case of ordinary local government elections, but nevertheless it would still add substantial complications, and we are not anxious to complicate this Measure still further. The House will agree that the number of persons who would wish to take advantage of a provision of this kind is not very great in the case of local government elections. I believe it is the experience, in Parliamentary elections that the amount of use made of this provision by Service personnel, except at a General Election where interest is naturally widespread, is relatively small. I suggest that this would introduce a complication which would be virtually impossible to operate in respect of casual elections in local government, and that it would not be worth while.

Commander Galbraith: We are somewhat disappointed with the reply we have had. We feel that the Service voter is entitled to every possible consideration, and that simply to rule the matter out because of administrative difficulties is not treating the matter fairly. I should have thought that it would have been possible to have a


notation on the register whereby, automatically, there would go out to Service voters a postal ballot form. When the hon. Gentleman says that matters of grave importance or interest do not arise at municipal elections I believe he is wrong. There is at the moment great interest in housing questions, with which men who are leaving the Services are very much concerned. They would, I know, desire to have the opportunity of recording their opinion about the way in which the housing problem is tackled. The Service voter does, I believe, attach great importance to the recording of his opinion at local government elections. If the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland looked into this matter I am sure they would find means of overcoming the difficulty. Service men could get the vote if only the will was there to enable them to record it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 27, leave out lines 42 to 47.—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 26.—(Voting by post by absent voters.)

Amendments made: In page 28, line 27, leave out "by post," and insert "as an absent voter."

In line 44, leave out from "treated," to "or," in line 46.—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 27.—(Service voters' proxies.)

Amendments made: In page 29, line 15, leave out "for a service voter."

In line 16, leave out "for a service voter."

In line 31, leave out "an elector," and insert "a service voter."

In line 38, leave out "aforesaid," and insert:
proxy for an elector at a local government election.

In line 39, at end, insert:
(5) The registration officer shall keep a record of electors for whom proxies have been appointed and of the names and addresses or the persons appointed.

In line 41, leave out "(7),"and insert "(6)."—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 29.—(Effect of register, etc.)

Amendments made: In page 30, line 39, leave out "electoral," and insert "local government."

In page 31, line 6, leave out from "ground," to "otherwise," in line 8, and insert:
that he is not a British subject or is not of full age or is otherwise subject to any legal incapacity to vote, or that on the qualifying date or the date of his appointment, as the case may be, he was not a British subject or was not of full age or was."—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 32.—(Limit of, and return and declarations as to, expenses.)

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 32, line 14, to leave out "penny halfpenny," and to insert "twopence."
When the Bill was in Committee the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) raised the question of the adequacy and the limit of election expenses that had been suggested by the Speaker's Conference, and I undertook to have consultations with people who might be competent to guide the House in the matter. The National Agent of the Labour Party had a conference with the National Agents of the Conservative, Liberal and National Liberal Parties, who made a unanimous recommendation which I communicated to the Leaders of the parties in the House. They accepted the recommendation of the agents, and this is now embodied in this Amendment and the following Amendment which deals with this matter.
I think the House would like to know the exact effect this will have on the limit of expenses allowed in Parliamentary Elections. At present, the allowance is 6d. for each elector plus the election agent's fee up to £75 in county constituencies, and 5d. for each elector plus the agent's fee up to £50 in borough constituencies. In the original draft of the Bill the suggestion, following the lines of the Speaker's Conference, was £450 plus 1½d. for each elector in county constituencies, or 1d. for each elector in borough constituencies. The Amendment leaves the £450 as it was but adds a ½d. in respect of each elector, making 2d. for each elector in the county constituency or 1½d. for each elector in the borough constituency.
The House may be interested in the examples of how this will work out. In a county constituency with an electorate of 40,000 the existing law allows a maximum expenditure of £1,075. In the Bill


as introduced that expenditure would have been reduced to £700. The Amendment will raise it to £783 6s. 8d. With an electorate of 50,000, in a county constituency, the present scale allows £1,325. The Bill, as introduced, allows £762 10s. and the Amendment will allow £866 13s. 4d. With an electorate of 60,000, in a county, the candidate would be allowed to spend not more than £1,575 at present, or £825 according to the Bill as introduced and £950 if the Amendment is carried. With an electorate of 70,000 in a county, the candidate can spend up to £1,825 at present; £887 10s. according to the Bill as introduced and £1,033 6s. 8d. by the Amendment.
In the case of borough constituencies, an electorate of 40,000 carries maximum expenditure, at the moment, of £883 6s. 8d.; the Bill reduced that to £616 13s. 4d. and the Amendment will raise it to £700. In the case of an electorate of 50,000, £1,091 13s. 4d. can be spent at present; under the Bill the figure is £658 6s. 8d., and the Amendment increases it to £762 10s. With an electorate of 60,000, £1,300 can be spent at the moment; under the Bill as drafted that would have been reduced to £700 and the Amendment raises it to £825. With an electorate of mom the maximum expenditure allowed at present is £1,508 6s. 8d.; the Bill reduced that to £741 13s. 4d. and the Amendment raises it to £887 10s.
In each kind of electorate there is a very substantial reduction in the amount that can be spent. I understand that agents feel that Elections will, in most cases, have to be very economically conducted to bring them within these limits. My own view is that in the past candidates of all parties have spent considerable sums of money which have not produced any great results. I have no doubt that this will lead to a concentration of expenses on those methods of electioneering which are likely to be most productive of votes.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 32, line 18, after "penny," insert "halfpenny."—[Mr. Ede.]

CLAUSE 42—(Miscellaneous amendments as to election expenses and propaganda.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 42, line 37, to leave out from "sixteen,"

to second "and," in line 38, and to insert:
except in so far as it relates to bands of music, torches, flags and banners.
This Amendment proposes to alter the drafting of paragraph (b) of Clause 42 (1) as it was amended in Committee. It was amended so as to continue in force the provision as to payments or contracts for payments for bands of music, torches, flags or banners. Actually the way in which it was drafted has been found not to be satisfactory for that purpose, and, therefore, the words proposed to be inserted in this Amendment are brought forward.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "music," to insert:
other than music reproduced by gramophone records.
The purpose of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is simply to get an assurance or an understanding that by maintaining these provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibit payments in respect of bands of music, torches, flags and banners at a parliamentary election, we are not, in fact, prohibiting the quite common practice of playing a gramophone record in a motorcar to attract by a suitable tune a crowd before embarking upon an open air speech. If we have to pay something for the hire of the gramophone are we, in fact, making a payment relating to a band of music?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: While the Home Secretary is dealing with that point I wonder if he will deal with the situation which might arise if some zealous and interested owner of a car fitted with a radio which was taken into a public place during an election switched on the radio. He might have a candidate near or in the car when he turned on the wireless, and the band might be playing on the normal B.B.C. programme at the time. Would the playing by that band in those circumstances be considered a breach of the Corrupt Practices Act?

Mr. C. Williams: Will a choir such as a Welsh choir be all right in these circumstances. This is a point which ought to be brought forward. I have some excellent Welsh supporters in my division, and I do not wish to see them stopped from singing if they think it necessary, because they were mostly Socialists but now they are sensible people.

Mr. Ede: The kind of things that have been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) would not be hit by this Amendment. It all depends on whether payment is made. Many bands are willing to volunteer to come forward either to support the candidate or to drown the views of his opponent, like the celebrated election at Eatanswill. If no payment is made the gramophone can be used just as the band can be used. If, however, a payment is made for it—if somebody with a loudspeaker van undertakes, let us say, to provide music while awaiting the arrival of the next speaker—I think that would, in fact, be an infraction of the law, on the assumption that the whole arrangement is being paid for. The same applies to what was said by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams); so long as the choir comes voluntarily to the place where the singing takes place, there is no prohibition on such a thing by the words of the Amendment.

Commander Galbraith: I would like some further enlightenment because I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has got the picture clearly. As far as I understand, it is perfectly proper for any candidate at an election to hire a loudspeaker van to speak through it himself or to play to the crowd recordings of his speeches.

Mr. Ede: It may be in some cases and not in others.

Commander Galbraith: Is it permissible for the candidate, having gone to that expense, to play gramophone records on that loudspeaker installation? The gramophone records, of course, would have to be purchased. Would it be proper for that to be included in the expenses of the candidate? This is a point on which perhaps we could have legal assistance, or into which the right hon. Gentleman

might look further, if he is not quite certain of the position. I am sure he would not deny those attending an election meeting an opportunity of hearing the Conservative Party playing "Land of Hope and Glory." He might object, of course, to hearing "The Red Flag" played at Socialist meetings.

Mr. Ede: Curiously at the last General Election, in the constituency in which I live, the Labour candidate, who is now a Member of this House, was carried by his election supporters to his Committee rooms on the eve of the poll; they were all singing, very lustily, "Land of Hope and Glory." I do not imagine many other Labour candidates have had the same experience but it is astonishing what happens in the excitement of General Elections.
I was surprised to hear that "Land of Hope and Glory" is one of the anthems of the Tory Party. I have often attempted to sing it, to the great annoyance of people standing or sitting near me, and I should not have thought that I was subscribing to the doctrines of the party opposite by so doing.

Commander Galbraith: Would the right hon. Gentleman give that advice to his hon. Friends behind him who constantly sing "The Red Flag" in this House?

Mr. Ede: I sing "The Red Flag," too. Regarding the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Commander Galbraith) if the expenditure to which he referred was on music for the election, I think it will be caught by the words; but if the hon. and gallant Member has his own records at home, brings them along and plays them, and no expense is incurred at the time, I would have thought it would not be caught. This is one of the things which will have to be judged on the facts of the case. I cannot see the difference between hiring a band and hiring a car, one of the stipulations being that the person who provides the loudspeaker shall also provide gramophone records to be played on whatever instrument may be in the car for the purpose of producing noise.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Reid: It is rather important to get this point precisely right for the assistance of those of whatever party who conduct elections. I wonder if the Lord Advocate would agree that the words in the part of


the Corrupt Practices Act which are retained are "bands of music," not "music"? There are many forms of music which are not produced by bands. As I understand it, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will agree with me, if I choose to produce either a singer or a solo instrument, either alive or in the "canned" form of a gramophone record, it seems to me that I am not breaking the law because it seems that these words are all that is left of the old Section, and when one is trying to prosecute one must bring the person concerned exactly within the words. If the words are "bands of music" I should have thought that a singer or a choir or a solo instrument, whether alive or through the medium of a gramophone, is plainly exempt. I hope that the Lord Advocate will agree with that.
On the other hand, it is equally clear that a live band—and a band need not consist of more than two persons I should think, but I will not go into these niceties—is prohibited if one pays for it, but what about using a record, or, as my noble Friend says, the B.B.C. programme? That is a difficult point. Is that a band of music or is it not? It would be highly desirable to have on record for the purpose of assisting all parties in the conduct of elections what the Lord Advocate's answer is upon that point. I agree that the Lord Advocate's view is not conclusive when it comes to a question of prosecution. On the other hand, I think that all sensible prosecutors would not bring a prosecution against someone if they were informed that in this House, when the Bill was being discussed, an assurance had been given by a Government spokesman that a certain thing was not intended to be criminal. I hope that the Lord Advocate will tell us which is the view of the Government. Is the gramophone record of the band prohibited or not if one pays for it? I hope that the Lord Advocate will also agree with me that there is no prohibition either of the solo instrument or the singer.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): On this vexed question of when is a band not a band the simple solution is to be found in the withdrawal by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) of his Amendment and by leaving the law as it stands at present. If it is put to me. What is the existing

law, I would refer to the existing Corrupt Practices Act, in which there is reference to "bands of music"? That might, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) must know, refer even to a single individual. North of the Border at least we have such people as one-man bands and to that extent we do not require plurality of numbers in order to provide something which may be an offence under the Section. Nor do we require to charge him with acting in concert because a single individual might be charged.
Looking at the matter quite seriously, I feel it would be in the interest of the hon. Members opposite who are putting forward this Amendment to the proposed Amendment if they withdrew it. I do not think that the law as it stands refers to gramophone records playing music. When reference is made to "bands of music" it refers to live bands. It is sometimes difficult to realise whether some of the bands we listen to are alive or dead. I use the word in the generic sense. Therefore, if my construction is correct, that bands of music refer to live bands, and do not refer to gramophone records, and we leave the law as it stands, I think the interests of all parties will be served.

Mr. Sargood: May I ask if the Lord Advocate would tell the House whether the term "gramophone records "would include some speakers?

Mr. Peake: In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Lord Advocate, and bearing in mind the safeguards which the Secretary of State for Scotland introduced yesterday, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 43.—(Failure to appoint election agent.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move in page 44, line 39, at the end, to insert:
and
(ii) the reference in subsection (6) to the provision of the local elections rules therein mentioned included a reference to subsection (2) of section sixty-seven of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.


This Amendment is to bring the Scottish part of the Bill into harmony with the changes made elsewhere. We have altered the polling or counting agent, and now we have the candidate's agent, and therefore this part of the Bill requires to be adjusted in order to conform to the new description of the agent.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 50.—(Powers of courts with respect of granting of relief, restraining false statements and inspection of ballot papers.)

Mr. Wheatley: I beg to move, in page 51, line 30, at the end to insert:
(c) for any reference to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, there shall be substituted a reference to a sheriff clerk.
This is a formal Amendment merely to replace the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery in England, by the sheriff clerk in Scotland, who is the corresponding officer for the purposes of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 52.—(Area of incapacity and inquiry into corrupt and illegal practices.)

Amendment made: In page 53, line 15, after "that," insert:
of the constituency or local government area."—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 53.—(Computation of time for purposes of election petitions.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 54, line 4, after second "Act," to insert "or this Part of this Act."
This is little more than a drafting Amendment. It will apply the rules contained in Clause 53 about the computation of time to Part III of this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 56.—(Ordinary day of election.)

Mr. Warbey: I beg to move, in page 56, line 12, to leave out "that provided by," and to insert:
the same throughout England and Wales and shall be fixed for each year by the Secretary of State in accordance with.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We might take the next six Amendments together.

Mr. Warbey: The purpose of this and the following Amendments is to provide that local elections in England and Wales shall take place on the same day, on a

day which, in the nature of the case, in order to ensure uniformity, must be appointed by the Secretary of State, and that that day should be a day related to the 9th day of April. The Clause, as it stands at present, provides that local elections shall be held partly in April and partly in May. County Council elections have been held in the second week in April in the year in which such elections occur and the remaining local elections have been held in the second week in May.
This Clause as drafted presents certain serious difficulties. The first is from the point of view of the electors. As it stands at present, the elector will be required in some years, of which next year will be one, to vote in two, or possibly even three, local elections during the short space of one month. First, he will be required to vote in the county council elections in April. Then, he will be required to vote perhaps in a borough council or a district council election in May. He may even be required to vote on one day of the week in May at a rural district council election and on another day of the week at a parish council election. I submit that to require an elector in the course of one month to present himself at the polling station on three different occasions is asking too much of people who, up to the present, unfortunately have not shown a great deal of interest in local elections. Possibly it will lead to confusion. Most certainly it will lead to laxity and apathy in the conduct of local elections.
Then there are two serious difficulties for the electoral organisation. It will be generally agreed that the party electoral organisations are based on the divisional party as a unit. Whatever elections are taking place, the work of organisation is conducted by the divisional party through its agent, through its paid and voluntary workers who are gathered together in a joint effort to conduct electioneering in any part of the constituency for any purpose. Therefore, the divisional electoral organisations will be required in the short space of one month to conduct an electioneering effort in relation to two, three or possibly even four, different polling days. That will lead to great complexity and will place an excessive burden on the organisation.
A further difficulty for the electoral organisation is that the provision of the Bill for gap of one month between the county council elections and the remaining local elections, is too long for a concentrated effort and too short to allow breathing space for the hard pressed workers, especially the voluntary workers who mainly rally to the cause of the Labour Party on such occasions. It will not allow sufficient breathing space to enable them to re-organise and make as substantial an effort in the second spell of elections as they make in the first. The gap is too short for some purposes and too long for others. One possible solution of that difficulty is to lengthen the time to a period of two or three months.
Then one faces the difficulty that it will involve either putting back the county council elections perhaps to March—and and I am sure that after the experience of the freeze up last year nobody will want that—or putting forward the remaining local elections to June and July and becoming involved, in rural and semi-rural constituencies, in haymaking and other farming activities. That is a time when election workers and electors spend the light evenings on their allotments and smallholdings.
9.15 p.m.
Therefore, the alternative solution which seems to overcome all the difficulties is that of closing the gap and having all the elections on one day. I submit that that has certain positive advantages. The first is that, if they are all held on one day early in Spring, we get the benefit of reasonably good weather. The second is that it will make both for good election organisation, which is a contribution to better elections, and for better polling on the part of the electors. It will mean that the electors who come along to vote in the borough council or district council elections, which they feel are perhaps nearer to them and to their interests, will also vote at the same time for the county council, and that will have the effect of livening up the interest in county council elections which has been one of the most unsatisfactory features of our local democracy in the past.
The Home Secretary, when he put forward the argument for this Clause on Second Reading, used only one argument in support of the proposal, and that was that all the local associations had asked

for Spring elections during a time when they could hope for reasonably good weather. That condition is provided for in the Amendment I am now moving, and I therefore see no reason why it should not be accepted by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: The subject-matter of this Amendment engaged my very careful and prolonged attention during the preparation of this Bill. If the choice were left to me without any other influence being brought to bear upon me, I should be in favour of reducing the number of days on which elections take place in any one area. In fact, I approached the parties and the local authorities' associations with that object in view. Both the parties and the associations took the view, however, that this was undesirable. There was a very strong feeling, for instance, that non-county borough councillors did not want their elections to take place at the same time as the county council elections. They had a feeling that on occasions it might involve them as appearing on the same ticket, though in different elections, with somebody with whom they would rather not be so closely associated.
When we came to consider the matter, we were also faced with this difficulty. The local authorities' associations were also very averse to their elections being brought on to the same day. At the present time, the county council and urban and rural council elections take place in every third year at about the interval that is prescribed by this Clause, except that they take place a month earlier. The county council elections, in every third year, take place about the 1st March—within seven days of the 1st March is, I think, actually the date prescribed—and the urban or rural council elections take place on a date which is fixed in relation to 6th April, so that approximately a month intervenes at the present time. Although I think some saving in energy might be made by bringing these two elections on to the same day, I do not think, in areas where there have been county and urban or rural council elections taking place, the difficulties that have been mentioned by my hon. Friend have, in fact, been created.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) goes further and wants all the elections in the country to take place on one day, to be fixed by the Secretary of


State. I am bound to say I think that would be a proposition which would be very inconvenient for various parts of the country. The days selected, after very careful study of local habits in various parts of the country, themselves vary. Some people like to have their elections on a Saturday. I was brought up to believe that a Saturday election was best—that Saturday was the best day for the poll to take place. I understand that nowadays that view has rather altered and that, with the growth of professional football and other interests, people who used to like Saturday elections now fight shy of them.
There may still be some areas where Saturday elections might suit the convenience of most people. There was a peculiar provision in the Local Government Act, 1894 that the elections for urban and rural councils should take place on a Monday unless the county council fixed some other day. I am bound to say that in my experience, when that provision was actually worked so as to have the elections on a Monday, that day generally seemed to be the least convenient day of the week on which to have an election, but there may be some places where a Monday is regarded as the most suitable day. Personally, I think in this matter we must bow to the opinions of those who have to conduct the elections. On this question, those who are responsible for the organisation of the elections from the party point of view and those who are responsible for the organisation of the elections as returning officers, presiding officers and others, do not desire that these elections should be brought on to the same day.
There is one point which my hon. Friend mentioned to which I think I should draw attention. He said that rural district council elections and parish council elections might take place on different days. It is one of the things which I think, shows how common sense occasionally prevails in these matters—whether the creeping common sense we heard of earlier today from the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) or the more ordinary common sense—that rural district councils and parish council elections, although not required by statute to take place on the same day, in fact do take place on the same day. The date is fixed by the county council.
I suggest that in this question, although there are arguments on both sides, we cannot afford to neglect the experience of the people who conduct these elections, whether as promoters of candidates or as persons engaged in conducting the poll, preparing for the poll and declaring the results. I would suggest to my hon. Friends, therefore, that they should not press this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 60.—(Hours of poll at district and parish elections.)

Amendment made: In page 58, line 22, leave out "that purpose," and insert: "the delivery of the said notices."—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 66.—(Payment of expenses of registration.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 63, line 23, after "expenses," to insert "or contribution thereto."
This is consequential upon an earlier Amendment in page 4 relating to the City of London.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 68.—(Registration appeals.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 66, line 15, after "lie," to insert "on any point of law."
This Amendment is designed to ensure that the law under this Bill will remain the same as it is at present. The existing law in Scotland with regard to these appeals is that a point can be taken by way of appeal on a matter of law only. The Clause as at present drafted would allow appeals on any question at all. In order to preserve the status quo this Amendment is necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 69.—(Supplemental provisions as to members of Forces.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Mr. Ede. Page 67, line 27.

Mr. Ede: There are three earlier Amendments to page 67 which were put down in my name but which on the Order Paper are attributed to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). It passes my comprehension how that slip could have occurred, but these three Amendments were put down in my name.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 67, line 11, to leave out from "the," to "shall," in line 13, and to insert:
the appropriate Government Department for securing that (so far as circumstances permit) every person having a Service qualification by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of Subsection (1) of Section six of this Act.
This and the two succeeding Amendments are consequential upon the Amendment relating to Service voters and declarations in page 7, line 1.

Mr. C. Williams: Permit me to say on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) that we are very glad the Government are accepting these Amendments which, I feel sure, are good. There is no need for me to explain them in detail, because the only object of explaining Amendments is to convince the Government, and apparently that has already been done by my hon. Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: in page 67, line 22, leave out "of those rights," and insert:
by him and, in the case of a man, by his wife of any rights conferred on them as aforesaid.

In line 26, at end, insert:
(5) In the last foregoing Subsection the expression 'the appropriate Government Department,' means in relation to members of the Forces, the Admiralty, Army Council or Air Council, as the case requires, and in relation to any other person means the Government Department under which he is employed in the employment giving the Service qualification."—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 70.—(Persons entitled to be registered in the same manner as Service voters.)

Amendment made: To leave out Clause 70.—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 74.—(General provisions as to interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 69, leave out lines 33 to 35.—[Mr. Younger.]

CLAUSE 75.—(Interpretation and application of local government provisions in England and Wales.)

Amendments made: In page 71, line 1, leave out from beginning, to "and," in line 7, and insert:
In this Act the expression 'clerk of the authority' in relation to a borough means the town clerk, and where the town clerk of a

borough is registration officer references to the authority whose clerk he is refer to the borough council.

In line 18, at end, insert:
(4) Subject to any express provision therein contained this Act, so far as it has effect for the purposes of parliamentary elections or of elections of London county councillors, shall apply in relation to the City of London as if it were a metropolitan borough and as if the common council were a metropolitan borough council, but with the substitution for references to the town clerk of references to the secondary; and for the purposes of this Subsection the Inner Temple and Middle Temple shall be treated as forming part of the said City."—[Mr. Younger.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Parliamentary Constituencies.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 75, line 6, after "except," to insert:
as otherwise stated and except.
This Amendment anticipates an Amendment in page 98, lines 23 to 29, relating to the Borough of Hammersmith. As a rule, constituencies in the First Schedule are described by reference to circumstances as they existed immediately before the end of 1947, but an exception is needed in the case of Hammersmith where, in order to secure that the constituency boundary coincides with ward boundaries, it is proposed that the new constituencies should be described by reference to the boundaries of new wards constituted by Order made this year.

Amendment agreed to.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 77, line 42, column 2, to leave out "Park," and to insert "Port."
This corrects a printer's error.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Commander Agnew) which deals with the position of the parish of Gwennap. There has been some correspondence about this, and the matter was raised on the Committee stage, when I undertook that if there were no objections raised, I would endeavour to meet the wishes of the locality. It is a small parish which has more affinities with one division than the other. I have just received the final statements which enable me to feel that this meets with general acceptance locally, and had the Debate gone


over, I would have put my name to this Amendment. I do not know if in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, you will feel that you can call it?

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make it quite clear that I had not selected any Amendment which changed the boundaries, but if this is merely a drafting Amendment, and there is no objection to it, I am prepared to ask the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Commander Agnew) to move it formally as a drafting Amendment.

Commander Agnew: I beg to move, in page 78, line 37, column 2, to leave out "and."
There is a second Amendment standing in my name relating to it, in page 78, line 40, column 2.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 78, line 40, column 2, at end, insert:
and the parish of Gwennap in the rural district of Truro."—[Comniander Agnew.]

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 79, line 42, at the end, to insert:
4. Ilkeston—

(i) The borough of Ilkeston;
(ii) the urban districts of Alfreton, Heanor and Ripley;
(iii) the parish of Shipley in the rural district of Belper.

During the Committee stage of the Bill, the question was raised with regard to several constituencies whether the spread of population over the area warranted their being regarded either as borough constituencies or county constituencies. This is one of the cases where, although a constituency has been put into the Bill as a borough constituency, the density of population per acre is such as to make it more suitable for inclusion as a county constituency.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 80, leave out lines 21 to 25.—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 82, line 25, column 2, to leave out "Mid Dorsetshire," and to insert "South Dorset."
This was an agreement which we made on the Committee stage of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 83, to leave out lines 15 to 21 and to insert:
2 Gateshead East—The following wards of the county borough of Gateshead, namely, East, East-Central, North-East, South and South-Central.
3 Gateshead West—The following wards of the county borough of Gateshead, namely, Central, North, North-West, West and West-Central.
This represents the revised views of the Boundary Commissioners on the proper division of Gateshead.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 84, to leave out line 11.
This Amendment—coupled with that in line 35 effects a transposition of the Hornchurch county constituency to a position as a borough division, on the same lines as I mentioned with regard to Ilkeston.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 84, line 35, at end insert:
5. Hornchurch—The urban district of Hornchurch.—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 86, line 4, column 2, after "Easton" to insert "Knowle."
This, and the two following Amendments—make corrections recommended by the Boundary Commissioners with respect to the City of Bristol.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 86, line 4, column 2, leave out "St. George West."

In page 86, leave out line 18, and insert: "St. George East and St. George West."—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 91, to leave out lines 3 and 4.
During Committee we altered the order of names in the borough of Chatham and Rochester to read "Rochester and Chatham," but no correction was made in the alphabetical order of the constituencies in Kent. This Amendment will observe the niceties of the alphabet.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 91, line 7, at end insert:
7. Rochester and Chathatn—The boroughs of Rochester and Chatham.—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 91, to leave out lines 25 and 26.
This Amendment goes together with the following Amendments in pages 92, 93 and 95. They transfer Droylsden and Stretford from county to borough divisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 92, leave out lines 32 and 33.—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 93, to leave out lines 2 to 10, and to insert:
4 Blackburn East—The following wards of the county borough of Blackburn, namely, St. John's, St. Mary's, St. Matthew's, St. Michael's, St. Stephen's, St. Thomas's and Trinity.
5 Blackburn West—The following wards of the county borough of Blackburn, namely, Park, St. Andrew's, St. Luke's, St. Mark's, St. Paul's, St. Peter's and St. Silas's.
This is a recommendation of the Boundary Commissioners with regard to the division of the borough of Blackburn into two constituencies.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page line 36, at the end, insert:
14. Droylsden—The urban districts of Audenshaw, Denton, Droylsden and Failsworth.—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 93, line 44, column 2, to leave out "Low Hill and Kensington," and to insert "Kensington and Low Hill."
This again is a correction in alphabetical order.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 94, line 33, column 1, to leave out, "Exchange," and to insert, "Cheetham."
This and the following Amendments relate to the adjustment of constituencies in the City of Manchester, in accordance with the Boundary Commissioners' recommendations.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page line 34, column 2, leave out "Exchange."

In line 35, at end, insert:
28 Manchester, Clayton—The following wards of the county borough of Manchester, namely, Beswick, Bradford, Miles Platting and Newton Heath.
29 Manchester, Exchange—The following wards of the county borough of Manchester, namely, All Saints, Exchange, Medlock Street, Oxford, St. Ann's, St. Clement's, St. George's, St. John's and St. Luke's.

In page 94, leave out lines 40 to 44.

In page 94, leave out lines 48 to 50.

In page 95, line 40, at end, insert:
45. Stretford—

(i) The borough of Stretford;
(ii) the urban district of Urmston.—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 98, line 7, to leave out from second "the" to second "and" in line 12, and to insert:
8. The Cities of London and Westminster—Brompton ward of the royal borough of Kensington; The county of the City of London, the borough of the City of Westminster.
This is the first of the Amendments dealing with the adjustments necessary to make the new provision for the City of London constituencies.

Mr. Howard: I should like to make one small point, not on the merits but on the results of this Amendment. The effect of this Amendment will be to alter the representation of the metropolitan boroughs of the London County Council. I do not want to go into the merits of it now, but may I call the attention of the Home Secretary to this fact and ask him if he would be prepared to consider it?

Mr. Ede: Certainly.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 98, to leave out lines 23 to 39 and to insert:
14. Hammersmith North—The following wards (as constituted by the Hammersmith (Councillors and Wards) Order, 1948, S.I., 1948, No. 729) of the borough of Hammersmith, namely, College Park and Latimer, Coningham, Old Oak, Starch Green, White City and Wormholt.
15 Hammersmith, South—The following wards (as so constituted) of the borough of Hammersmith, namely, Addison, Broadway, Brook Green, Grove, Olympia, Ravenscourt and St. Stephen's.
This Amendment is due to an alteration in the wards of Hammersmith while the Bill has been going through the


House, and will ensure that when the new constituencies are formed the ward boundaries for borough elections will coincide with the boundaries of the Parliamentary Divisions at the points where the two constituencies touch.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments: In page 98, line 43, column 2, leave out "Brompton."

In page 99, line 23, at end, insert:
34. Shoreditch and Finsbury.—The boroughs of Finsbury and Shoreditch.

In page 99, leave out lines 41 to 43.—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede: I beg to move in page 100, to leave out lines 4 to 8.
The Government Amendments in pages 100 and 101 adjust constituencies in Middlesex to borough and county constituencies in accordance with the density of the population.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 100, line 10, at end, insert:
5 Uxbridge—The urban districts of Uxbridge and Yiewsley and West Drayton.

In line II, at end, insert:

1. Acton—The borough of Acton.
2. Brentford and Chiswick—The borough of Brentford and Chiswick.

In line 24, at end, insert:
6. Finchley—

(i) The borough of Finchley;
(ii)the urban district of Friern Barnet.

In page 101, leave out lines 21 and 22.—[Mr. Ede.]

9.45 p.m.

Mr. S. N. Evans: I beg to move, in page 108, line 5, column I, at the end, to insert "and Tipton."
The House may feel that this Amendment does not compare in importance with events at Trent Bridge and elsewhere, but I think that it encourages civic pride, and that is something we should seek to do. The Bill as it stands entails the severance of the borough of Tipton from the Parliamentary Division of Wednesbury and its incorporation in the new Division of Rowley Regis. Much as we regret that change, both on sentimental and political grounds, we do not oppose it, but the citizens and civic fathers of Tipton feel very strongly that the name "Tipton" should be included in the name

of the new Parliamentary Division The town of Tipton is a compact community of 25,000 electors, whereas the remainder of the new Division, consisting of 34,000 electors, is split over four different communities, Oldhill, Cradley Heath, Blackheath and Tividale. Whereas there is no postal area at Rowley Regis, Tipton has a postal area of its own. I suggest therefore, that the inclusion of the name Tipton would aid identification. The industrial borough of Tipton is very well known and, ever since the early days of the industrial revolution our products have gone out to the four corners of the earth. The Home Secretary is a good democrat and a person well versed in civic affairs. He will not fail to recognise that there is a psychological aspect to the inclusion of the name of a compact community of 25,000 citizens in the nomenclature of a constituency.
Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] It is very dangerous to encourage a Black Country man. Finally, I would point out that in the county of Stafford, in which the borough of Tipton is situated, there have been several new divisions which have been given double-barrelled names like Lichfield and Tamworth, Stafford and Stone and Oldbury and Halesowen. I understand in the latter case that the name was originally confined to Halesowen but following representations the name of Oldbury was added. The electors I am privileged to represent cannot see why similar consideration should not be given to Tipton. On behalf of these 25,000 hard working Black Country men and women, whose character and tradition testify to the greatness of their past and the tremendous potentialities of their future, I ask the Home Secretary to accede to their request.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No question can be put until the Amendment has been seconded. I have asked if there is anyone to second the Amendment?

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for two valid reasons. First of all because of a very lamentable state of affairs—I missed an Amendment in my own name. Had I moved it, I should have said exactly what the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) said. The


other reason is that I had a close association with the gas works in Tipton, and I expect the gas works impelled the eloquence with which this Amendment was proposed by the hon. Member for Wednesbury.

Sir Peter Bennett: I should like in a few words to support my constituent, my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). This proposed constituency happens to abut on mine and I can confirm all that he said about the civic pride of the people of the Black Country. We in Birmingham have had the pleasure of working with them for many years. Large numbers of workers from Tipton and from Rowley Regis come to work in our factories. We hold them in the highest respect for their solidarity, loyalty and public spirit. I know that this matter is felt very deeply in those districts. The Black Country workers have a great civic pride, and I hope the Home Secretary will be able to fall in with the Amendment so ably put by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ede: I know from past experience that the burgesses of Tipton are people of great determination and resource, for I was sent there when I was at the Board of Education to open a school meals kitchen. At the same time, I was removing their powers as a Part III educational authority. The Mayor proposed my health in terms which indicated that he hoped I would not be too healthy during the next few months. Before I had a chance to reply, he announced that he had another engagement. During the afternoon I visited part of Tipton and saw there the construction of the Bailey bridges which played so great a part in the invasion of Europe. I also saw other evidence of the great industrial pride and strength of this borough. As it is the largest borough in the Division, I have, therefore, the greatest pleasure in agreeing that its name should be added to that of the Division.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cooper-Key: I beg to move, in page III, line 38, at the end, to insert:
3. Hastings—

(i) The county borough of Hastings and the borough of Rye;
(ii) the rural district of Battle, except the parishes of Burwash, Etchingham and Ticehurst.


The object of this Amendment is to retain for Hastings its status as a Parliamentary borough and to resist the intention under the Bill to make it a county constituency. I have already put forward the case for Hastings during the Committee stage and will not weary the House by repeating now my speech on that occasion. I would draw the attention of the House to the final paragraph of the White Paper issued this month by the Boundary Commission. It says:
We have carefully considered the arguments submitted to us on this question and we have no objection, if the White Paper proposals are accepted, to the Hastings constituency being designated as a borough constituency.
In view of this I feel fortified in asking the Home Secretary if he will reconsider his previous decision and grant Hastings its borough status.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 114, to leave out line 2.
This Amendment, and the one following in line 8, will have the effect of changing Swindon from a county to a borough constituency. I think this is one of the strongest cases in the country for such a change to be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 114, line 8, at end, insert:
(b) Borough Constituency
1. Swindon—The borough of Swindon.—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 118, to leave out lines 22 to 40, and to insert:
14. Leeds Central—The Armley and New Wortley, Blenheim, Central, Holbeck North, Mill Hill and South and Westfield wards of the county borough of Leeds.
15. Leeds East-Central—The Burmantofts, Harehills, Potternewton and Richmond Hill wards of the county borough of Leeds.
16. Leeds North-East—The North, Round hay and Woodhouse wards of the county borough of Leeds.
17. Leeds North-West—The Far Headingley, Hyde Park and Kirkstall wards of the county borough of Leeds.
18. Leeds South—The Beeston, Holbeck South, Hunslet Carr and Middleton and West Hunslet wards of the county borough of Leeds.
19. Leeds South-East—The Cross Gates and Templenewsam, East Hunslet and Osmond-thorpe wards of the county borough of Leeds.


20. Leeds South-West—The Bramley, Farnley and Wortley and Upper Armley wards of the county borough of Leeds.
This Amendment gives effect to the rearrangement of the proposed Leeds constituencies as recommended by the Boundary Commissioners.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Miss Bacon: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, column 1, to leave out "East-Central," and to insert "North-East."
First of all I should like to thank the Home Secretary for allowing a period between Committee and Report stages to enable organisations to make representations to the Boundary Commission and so produce a scheme much tidier than that suggested on the Committee stage.
The Amendments which we propose concern not the composition but the names of the constituencies. Whenever there are compass point names there is bound to be a great deal of confusion. In this case I think the proposed names will mean more confusion than ever, because we are to have a proposed "East Central" and a proposed "Central" constituency. I am quite certain that Leeds "East Central" will be very much confused with Leeds "Central." In addition, of the 49,800 voters in the proposed Leeds East-Central Division all but 6,400 have been in the Leeds North-East Division up to now. The proposed South-West division is the present West Division minus only one ward, and for no reason whatever three wards are now to be called South-West Division whereas three wards with the addition of one ward previously were called the West Division. This sounds confusing and it will be confusing in future unless the Home Secretary agrees to the changing of the names. Therefore, I ask him to retain the names which we have previously had, and to change Leeds East-Central to Leeds North-East, to change Leeds North-East to Leeds North and to retain the name of Leeds West in place of the proposed Leeds South-West.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. George Porter: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I wish to emphasise that East-Central is a contradiction in terms. I do not know how one arrives at East Central. It must be either east of the centre or it is the centre. In view of the fact that the people I represent are definite in their desire for their constituency still to be called Leeds Central and object to anyone else using the word "Central," I hope that the word "Central" will be taken away from the new constituency and that the-constituency will be named as is proposed by this Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I have had representations made to me from more than one quarter in Leeds that these suggested Amendments would make for convenience in the city and for the more easy identification of the proposed constituencies. Therefore, I am prepared to accept this and the two following Amendments.

Amendment, to the proposed Amendment, agreed to.

Further Amendments made to the proposed Amendment: In line 6, col. 1, leave out "North-East" and insert "North."

In line 14, col. 1, to leave out "South-West,"and insert "West."—[Miss Bacon.]

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 127, to leave out lines 2 and 3.
This is a simple Amendment which changes the designation of the burghs of Coatbridge and Airdrie from that of a county constituency to that of a burgh constituency. Historical reasons are the reason for this Amendment, which brings the designation into conformity with the actual facts.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 127, line 25, at end, insert:
1. Coatbridge and Airdrie.—The burghs of Coatbridge and Airdrie.—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 127, line 26, to leave out from "Bridgeton," to the end of line 34, on page 135, and to insert:
The following wards (as constituted by the Local Government (Scotland) (Glasgow Wardsand


and Councillors) Order, 1948, S.I., 1948, No. 876) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Calton and Dalmarnock.
2. Glasgow, Camlachie—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Dennistoun, Provan and that part of Mile-End ward which lies to the east of a line commencing at a point on the northern boundary of the ward immediately opposite the centre line of Millerston Street thence southward to and along the centre line of Millerston Street to the centre line of Gallowgate; thence eastward along the centre line of Gallowgate to a point opposite the centre line of Fielden Street; thence southward along the centre line of Fielden Street to the termination of the line on the southern boundary of the Mile-End ward immediately opposite the centre of Fielden Street.
3. Glasgow, Cathcart—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Cathcart, Langside and that part of Govanhill ward which is South and East of a line commencing at a point on the western boundary of the ward where it is cut by the centre line of Calder Street; thence Eastward along the centre line of Calder Street to the centre of Polmadie Road; thence North-East-ward along the centre line of Polmadie Road to the termination of the line on the Northern boundary of the ward at the centre of the British Railways main line from Glasgow to Rutherglen.
4. Glasgow Central—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Exchange and Townhead.
5. Glasgow, Gorbals—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Gorbals, Hutcheson town and that part of the Govanhill ward which is not included in the Cathcart constituency.
6. Glasgow, Govan—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Craigton, Fairfield and that part of Govan ward which lies to the West of a line commencing on the North-West boundary of the ward where it is cut by the centre line of Greenfield Street; thence Southward along the centre line of Greenfield Street to the centre line of Crossloan Road; thence South-Eastward along the centre line of Crossloan Road to the centre line of Craigton Road; thence Southward along the centre line of Craigton Road to the termination of the line at the ward boundary at the junction of Craigton Road and Shieldhall Road.
7. Glasgow, Hillhead—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Kelvinside, Partick (West), and that part of Particle (East) ward which is south and west of a line commencing at a point on the ward boundary at the junction of the centre lines of Dowanside Road and Byres Road; thence southward along the centre line of Byres Road to the centre line of Ashton Road; thence south-eastward along the centre line of Ashton Road to the centre line of University Avenue; thence eastward along the centre line of University Avenue to a point opposite the centre of the southern end of Oakfield Avenue, thence in an easterly direction in a straight line to a point on the east side of Kelvin Way where the north

boundary fence of Kelvingrove Park meets the said Kelvin Way, thence in a generally easterly direction along the north boundary fence of Kelvingrove Park to the southmost limit of Westbank Quadrant, thence in a straight line in a south-easterly direction to the east boundary of the ward at the centre of the River Kelvin.
8. Glasgow, Kelvingrove—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Anderston and Park.
9. Glasgow, Maryhill—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Maryhill and Ruchill.
10. Glasgow, Pollok—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Camphill, Pollokshaws and Pollokshields.
11. Glasgow, Scotstoun—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Knightswood, White-inch and Yoker.
12. Glasgow, Shettleston—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Parkhead, Shettleston and Tollcross and that part of Mile-End ward which is not included in the Camlachie constituency.
13. Glasgow, Springburn—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely Cowcaddens, Cowlairs and Springburn.
14. Glasgow, Tradeston—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Kinning Park, Kingston and that part of Govan ward which is not included in the Govan constituency.
15. Glasgow, Woodside—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, North Kelvin, Woodside and that part of Partick (East) ward which is not included in the Hillhead constituency.
This Amendment refers to the City of Glasgow. Since the Bill was drafted an order has been made redividing the city into new wards, and now that the new wards have been named the purpose of the Amendment is to put in the actual names of the wards and thus shorten the descriptions already in the Bill.

Mr. Neil Maclean: With regard to the constituency of Govan, it will be remembered on the last occasion, after we had discussed the matter and the Secretary of State for Scotland had replied, he suggested that we should meet the other people and try to come to some agreement upon the matter. I wish to say to him that I took him at his word and we tried to meet the other people but they declined to meet us. The people of Tradeston came away from the Govan constituency without notifying the Govan people as to whether they had


anything to say with regard to their attempts at filibustering.
The point that arises here is that we tried to meet these people and come to an amicable understanding with them. We even went to the Parliamentary Committee of the Glasgow Town Council and laid our case before them and impressed them so much that they agreed to rescind the previous decision justifying Tradeston taking over the Govan Ward. They suggested that we get in touch with the Tradeston Divisional Labour Party in order to come to an agreement. We tried to do that but the Tradeston people have declined to meet us. Consequently we are compelled to come to this House and ask this House to be the judges as to whether or not Tradeston is to take up an old historic place such as the Govan Ward.
Another objection raised by the Secretary of State for Scotland was in connection with the fact that we were dividing a ward in the re-apportionment of the Division, as set out in the Amendment I have down, with regard to both Trades-ton and Govan. He took exception to the fact that I was breaking up two wards in my Amendment. I have gone over the different wards in Glasgow, and in the 15 Parliamentary constituencies which compose the whole of Glasgow, we have five wards that are divided already, leaving out of account the Govan ward and part of Pollokshields ward. Consequently, his objection on the previous occasion should be entirely over-ruled.
I would suggest that the Amendment that I have down brings back into the Govan constituency the old Govan ward, which has existed for eight or nine centuries. It is an old name place in Scotland and of considerable historic interest and it has several historical significances. The House of Commons has shown how willing it is to accept Amendments which affect either the historical significance of a constituency or the better settlement of the constituency itself. I trust that, on this occasion also, the sentiments of the House will be with the Govan constituency in the hope that it should be restored to its old place as a complete constituency with all its old historical associations.

Mr. Woodburn: If I might, by leave of the House, make reference to what

was said by my hon. Friend, I would point out that on the last occasion that he brought this matter before the House I explained that we viewed with sympathy his remarks about the breaking of an old tradition. There is no question but that this Bill makes great changes in many traditional constituencies throughout the country. Earlier the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) put forward a most sincere and eloquent plea on behalf of that constituency. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. MacLean) must have had a fellow-feeling for the right hon. Gentleman when he put forward his plea. Previously I recommended to my hon. Friend that he should try to get agreement amongst all those concerned in this matter. I suggested that if he came forward with an agreement the Government, who have no prejudice on this question, would deal sympathetically with the situation.
However, he says that he has not been able to get agreement with the neighbouring constituency. The City of Glasgow has not taken any action to support his view. With the idea of helping my hon. Friend, I made what inquiries I could into the possibility of an agreement. I am sorry to report that all the political parties are reluctant to agree to his suggestion. In view of the large body of opinion which is either not prepared to help him or is frankly in opposition to his proposal, I regret that it is impossible for me to recommend the House to agree to his suggestion, however sympathetic I feel myself.

Mr. Maclean: With the leave of the House, may I correct a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman? This constituency was taken away without the knowledge of the people of Govan. The people were not notified of any commission or committee. If the Secretary of State for Scotland is attempting to justify that deliberate action, which has been taken in order to make a safe constituency, then I have no faith in the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 135, line 43, to leave out from "Central," to the end of line 54, on page 143, and to insert:


The following wards (as constituted by the Local Government (Scotland) (Edinburgh Wards) Order, 1948, S.I., 1948, No. 1138) of the county of the city of Edinburgh, namely, George Square, Holyrood and St. Giles.
2. Edinburgh East—The burgh of Mussel-burgh and the following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Edinburgh, namely, Craigentinny, Craigmillar and Portobello.
3. Edinburgh, Leith—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Edinburgh, namely, Central Leith, South Leith and West Leith.
4. Edinburgh North—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Edinburgh, namely, Broughton, Calton and St. Andrew's.
5. Edinburgh, Pentlands—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Edinburgh, namely, Colinton, Gorgie-Dalry, Merchiston and Sighthill.
6. Edinburgh South—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Edinburgh, namely, Liberton, Morningside and Newington.
7. Edinburgh West—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Edinburgh, namely, Corstophine, Murrayfield-Cramond, St. Bernard's and Pilton.
This Amendment deals in a similar fashion with Edinburgh where an order has been issued for a re-division of the wards. This introduces the names of the new wards and takes the place of the rather detailed description given in the original Bill.

Mr. McCorquodale: As a Scotsman who, I am sorry to say, has long moved south, I cannot help thinking that Scottish Members who still represent Scottish constituencies are losing an opportunity by not bringing in the burgh of Musselburgh into the title of what is called the East Edinburgh constituency. It is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, of the burghs in Scotland. That it is now being absorbed by East Edinburgh seems to me rather sad, and this might have been in opportunity for preserving the name.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale). I should like to hear the view of the right hon. and earned Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. J. Wheatley) on this matter. Musselburgh is an ancient place. The term East Edinburgh is rather in-definite and perhaps the right hon. and earned Gentleman might have some suggestion to make.

Amendment agreed to.

10.15 p.m.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944, as amended.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 149, line 28, to leave out "include the words," and to insert "refer to the."
This is a consequential Amendment, following upon the alterations to the City of London constituency.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 151, line 46, in column 2, to leave out "and."
This Amendment, and the next two Amendments to lines 48 and 50 relate to the same matter:
In line 48, column 2 after "thereof," insert "and.
In line 50, column 2, leave out lines 50 to 54, and insert: "and, if the last day is a Saturday, between the hours of one and three in the afternoon on the day before:
Provided that no objection may be made in the afternoon of the said last day (or it is a Saturday at any time on that day) except to a nomination paper delivered within twenty-four hours of the last time for the delivery thereof, and in the case of a nomination paper so delivered no objection may be so made to the sufficiency or nature of the particulars of the candidate unless.
They are concerned with the provisions of the Third Schedule, which lays down that any objection to the sufficiency or nature of the particulars of a candidate must be made at or immediately after the time of delivery of the nomination papers. The House may remember that this was criticised in Committee because the time for delivery of nomination papers may now extend over a period of days instead of a very short period, and it was felt that this might cause some hardship.
These Amendments are designed to have the following effect. Except when the last day for the delivery of nominations is a Saturday, which is a rather exceptional case with which I will deal in a moment, objections to nomination papers handed in by the end of the day before can only be made between 10 a.m. and noon on the last day. Papers handed in on the last day will be open to objection at any time on that day, but, after noon, any objection to the sufficiency or nature of the particulars of the candidate must be made at or immediately after the time of delivery of the nomination papers.
That may seem complicated enough, but, unfortunately, there is a further complication which would arise if the last day was a Saturday, because noon is then the latest time that nomination papers could be handed in. Therefore, a special arrangement has to be made for that particular case, and the Amendment provides that, if the last day is Saturday, nomination papers delivered up to noon on the previous day, that is, Friday, can be objected to only between the hours of 1 and 3 p.m. on that day; that is, for a period of two hours on the Friday. Nomination papers handed in after noon on Friday will be open to objection on Friday afternoon or on Saturday, but any objection made on Saturday must be made at or immediately after the time of delivery of the nomination papers.
The result of this is that nomination papers presented in good time will be open to objection for a fixed period of two hours only. I think that it is clear, in the cases where Saturday is not involved, that it will only be between 10 a.m. and noon on the final day, but on the Saturday the fixed time will be between 1 and 3 p.m. on the previous day. In all cases where the nominations are in plenty of time, there will be a fixed period of two hours.
I know that it sounds complicated, but I do not think there will be any difficulty on the part of those concerned in understanding it. The only difficulty arises when nominations are handed in at the very last moment, and that, of course, we cannot help. We have therefore provided that, where the nominations are handed in at the end of the period, objection is to be made immediately after. That seems a reasonable provision.

Mr. Grimston: This seems a most complicated provision. Originally, the objection which we raised was that, with the enlargement of the time during which nominations could be handed in, the old provision that they had to be objected to was impracticable, because it would be necessary to have somebody sitting in the office throughout the period to catch anyone to whom he wished to object. It seems to me that these provisions will result in something very nearly approaching inconvenience. Could we have an explanation why it was necessary to make such a complicated provision to meet the point

we raised in Committee? I do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth in this matter, but this provision does seem so extraordinarily complicated that I would like some explanation why it has to be so complicated. If one reads the Amendment on page 151, line 50:
If the last day is a Saturday"—
objection has to be made—
between the hours of one and three in the afternoon on the day before.
That does not make sense anyway, because how can one object to a thing on the day before it is handed in? I do not understand the provision which has effect when the last day is a Saturday. It seems to me that it will be necessary for the parties to have someone continually in the office to watch for a nomination which may be handed in at the last moment on the Saturday. In view of this extraordinary complication, could we have some further explanation from the spokesman of the Government Front Bench?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the hon. Member, what happens if the Saturday is a public holiday? Does that affect the case in point?

Mr. Younger: If I may have the leave of the House I will try to explain this again. I think that one may take two types of case—whether we are talking of the case where the final day is a Saturday, when the last time is noon, or the case when it is on some other day of the week, in which case, of course, it is later. In either event, the majority of the nominations will probably be handed in well before the final moment. Most will be handed in a considerable time before the last moment. When that happens, we try to arrange that the objection, instead of having to be lodged immediately afterwards, will be lodged during a fixed period of two hours.

Mr. Grimston: On any day?

Mr. Younger: No. In the case of an election where the final day is a day other than Saturday, the hours will be between 10 a.m. and noon on the last day. Suppose the last day is a Friday, it will be between 10 a.m. and noon on the final day.

Mr. Grimston: That is for the objections to be lodged and, during the same time, nominations can be handed in?

Mr. Younger: Yes. That will be the fixed time for the objections to all nominations which have been put in at that time, and that, of course, will leave a considerable margin for the objection. I do not think one can avoid this—that if nominations are only handed in at the very end of the period, one must retain the provision of objections made immediately afterwards and, therefore, we have to have the two types of provision—the fixed period allowing quite a considerable margin before the final moment for nominations and, in addition, what I might call the last-minute arrangements where the nomination itself is only handed in during the last few hours. In the latter case, the objection must be made immediately afterwards, but the effect of that should be, taking the period as a whole during which nominations may be handed in, that it will not be necessary for people to be standing by to object during the earlier period because they will be able to object during that fixed period of two hours to all the nominations handed in up to that time. Of course, for the final period of a few hours, if they wish to object to last-minute nominations, they will, as at present, have to be standing by, but that is no great hardship because the period is not long; in fact, it is much the same as at the present time.
This will not be very difficult to understand when one knows which of these two cases it is to be—the Saturday case or the non-Saturday case. It is rather difficult to explain when one has to explain all the alternatives, but in the individual election there will not be the difficulties and the fixed hours will be quite well known.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am a little worried about this. I understand what the Under-Secretary has said, but it seems to me that the point at which objection should be made simple and time given for it, is the last minute of nomination. I know perfectly well that under this procedure it will be extremely difficult because objection must be made within two hours of the nominations being lodged, during the same period. There would always have to be someone standing by. I thought the matter was to be so arranged that a longer period was to be allowed for objections; that is to say, that nomination had to be lodged before a stipulated time, and that after the

stipulated time a longer period would be given for objection before the nomination would be accepted. As it is now it would appear the time is shorter than anything we have heard. Possibly that can be explained, but if anything funny is to be tried, anything dishonest or faked, it would be more likely to be tried at the last minute rather than at any other time, because the possibility of examining the papers, and so on, would be less. I should have thought, therefore, that the last moment for nomination should be sufficiently long for proper examination to be made. I should like some reassurance on that point.

Mr. Ede: The arrangement in the Bill is to meet the convenience of candidates and returning officers. It is notorious that hitherto candidates' agents have sent the nomination papers to the returning officer to have them checked, and he has made some pencilled marks by the side, and returned them to the candidates' agents with a notification. If there is any informality or invalidity in the paper the agent then has ample opportunity to get that altered, and to turn up on nomination day with papers which have already been checked. Then, in some constituencies, the farce is gone through of re-examining papers which have already been marked as correct. The new provision in the Bill is that instead of having only one day, with a certain limited number of hours on that day during which nomination papers can be handed in, when the nomination paper is completed the candidate's agent can send it along and it can be lodged at the place of election. All those nomination papers which have been received prior to 10 o'clock in the morning of the last day, except on a Saturday, are open to inspection between 10 and 12 o'clock, and no other hour.
Let us assume that a candidate has sent only one nomination paper. Although in the preliminary check that has taken place it has been passed as good, during those two hours it is found, on some objection, to be invalid. The candidate who would by that means have been prevented from standing has between 12 and three o'clock either to get that paper corrected or to get another valid paper to the returning officer. I hope the House will feel that this is the kind of arrangement that we should desire


to encourage. It enables this work to be done with greater accuracy, and I think that, in some respects, it avoids some of the difficulties that have occurred in the past when the validity of this kind of arrangement has been questioned. Therefore, I should hope that most candidates would avail themselves of this arrangement.
10.30 p.m.
Perhaps, a candidate turns up on the afternoon of the last day with his paper, although he has had some weeks during which he has known the date of the election. If he likes to run the risk of turning up with his paper after twelve noon on the last day, then I think he must stand the racket of having his paper objected to immediately. And if he likes to delay it till a quarter to three or five minutes to three before turning up with his paper, and the returning officer will not pass it, I think the consequences must be on his own head and he has no great entitlement to sympathy. I hope the House will think the arrangements we have made in response to the general request of the House is a reasonable one, which will allow people who conduct elections reasonably to get a great deal of assistance from it. Anyone who turns up at the last moment knows that if his paper is objected to, his nomination will be invalidated and I do not think he is entitled to any sympathy.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman about Saturday. Presumably limitation of work on Saturday is due to Saturday being recognised as a half-holiday. What happens if Saturday is a whole holiday?

Mr. Ede: I think that when the day is a public holiday it is a dies non for the purpose of these arrangements. I should not like that to be taken as final, but will get the answer and let the hon. and gallant Gentleman know.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's explanation that if a candidate puts in his nomination paper at the last moment, there is really less opening for objection to it than in the case of the nomination paper being in at any previous time. Does that not mean in the case of a late nomination paper, that people will have to be standing by

all through the last 24 hours to stop any wrong nomination papers being put in and to make objection directly that paper is put in? Really the effect of the provision will be to give an advantage to the candidate who likes to leave it till the last moment, because then, unless the objection is made immediately, no objection can be made.

Mr. Ede: On the last day, if a paper is handed in, then it will have to be objected to when it is deposited with the returning officer. I think we have gone as far as we can to meet people in this matter, and while I will consider any representations that may be made to me for further improvement, I think we have generally endeavoured to meet the spirit of the Committee in the matter, and I think the arrangement will be found entirely reasonable in practice.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 151, line 48, column 2 after "thereof," insert "and."

In line 50, column 2, leave out lines 50 to 54, and insert:
and, if the last day is a Saturday, between the hours of one and three in the afternoon on the day before:
Provided that no objection may be made in the afternoon of the said last day (or if it is a Saturday at any time on that day) except to a nomination paper delivered within twenty-four hours of the last time for the delivery thereof, and in the case of a nomination paper so delivered no objection may be so made to the sufficiency or nature of the particulars of the candidate unless."—[Mr. Younger.]

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Proceedings at Parliamentary elections.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 153 line 46, after "of," to insert:
delivering a nomination paper or of.
There was some doubt raised in Committee whether paragraph (8) would prevent a candidate from attending nominations even for the purpose of handing in his own nomination paper. We did not think that was the effect, but there was some doubt and the Amendment proposed is designed to make it quite clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 154 line 39, to leave out sub-paragraph (2), and to insert:
(2) In the case of a candidate who is outside the United Kingdom, a notice of withdrawal signed by his proposer and accompanied by a


written declaration also so signed of the candidate's absence from the United Kingdom shall be of the same effect as a notice of withdrawal signed by the candidate:
Provided that where the candidate stands nominated by more than one nomination paper a notice of withdrawal under this sub-paragraph shall be effective if, but only if,—

(a) it and the accompanying declaration are signed by all the proposers except any who is, and is stated in the said declaration to be, outside the United Kingdom; or
(b) it is accompanied, in addition to the said declaration, by a written statement signed by the candidate that the proposer giving the notice is authorised to do so on the candidate's behalf during his absence from the United Kingdom."

The provision that a candidate out of the United Kingdom might withdraw by telegram was criticised in Committee on the ground that it was open to abuse, and it was suggested that a better method might be found. This Amendment substitutes the provision that the proposer can send a notice of withdrawal on the candidate's behalf. I hope that that will meet the criticism that was made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page line 3, leave out "who have appointed proxies," and insert:
for whom proxies have been appointed."—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 157, line 32, to leave out sub-paragraph (2), and to insert:
(2) The surname of each candidate shall in all cases be printed by itself in large capitals, and his full particulars shall be set out below it and shall be printed in ordinary type except that small capitals shall be used—

(a) it his surname is the same as another candidate's, for his other names; and
(b) if his other names are also the same as the other candidate's, either for his description or for his residence unless each of them is the same as that of another candidate with the same surname and other names."

The House may remember that in Committee a difficulty arose about distinguishing between candidates who had not only the same surnames, but the same Christian names. It was then suggested that their descriptions should be printed in large type but it was thought by some hon. Members that an advantage would be given to the candidate having his name printed in large type, and my right hon. Friend promised that this would be reconsidered. Of course, if one is to distinguish in some way or another between candidates' names where they are similar it is impossible to avoid, ex hypothesi,

some distinction, but we have tried to get as near as we can to reconciling the irreconcilable. The surname of each candidate will be printed in large capitals and full details will be set out below. If the surname is the same, then small capitals will be used to print their other names to distinguish among them. If the other names, in addition to the surname, are also the same capitals are to be used either for the description or the address, whichever is the more appropriate to distinguish them. I do not think a distinction of this kind will give any advantage to any one candidate. Since it is obviously necessary to distinguish in some visible form between them, it is impossible to avoid having a difference of some kind but this reduces the problem to one of small proportions.

Mr. Gallacher: I would like to get some understanding of subparagraph (b). It would appear to me that where there are the same surnames, the same Christian names, and the same residence, they apply to the same person.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 158 line 47, after "a" to insert:
candidate or his election or.
This Amendment is to meet a suggestion in Committee that a candidate and his election agent should have the same power as a polling agent to order the arrest of a suspected imposter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 159 line 2, leave out "by a polling agent."—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 161, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(2) For the purposes of the said Rule 35 the agreement of a candidate or his election agent shall be as effective as the agreement of his counting agents.
One effect of paragraph 3 of Part IV of the Third Schedule is that it will be possible to adjourn a count only if all counting agents agree. A single counting agent could prevent an adjournment where everyone else thought it would be desirable. Representations have been made that this should be modified, and to meet those representations the Amendment provides that the consent of the candidate or his election agent would be sufficient instead of all his counting agents.

Amendment agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of local elections rules.)

Amendment made: In page 163, line 29, leave out "who have appointed proxies," and insert:
for whom proxies have been appointed."—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 164, line 21, at the end, to insert:
or in Scotland on a public holiday.
In the case of the rules governing the issue and receipt of ballot papers for voting by post, the list of days in subparagraph (4) is added to by including "a public holiday" with respect to Scotland, so that the issue of a ballot paper to those voting by post shall not require to be done in Scotland on a public holiday.

Mr. McKie: I would like to know if the addition of these words "or a public holiday" relates to Christmas Day and Good Friday. As the Secretary of State for Scotland knows, these days are not officially recognised in Scotland, and have not been recognised since the Reformation. Therefore, will the addition of these words "public holiday" so far as Scotland is concerned make it possible in Scotland to do what is not possible in England, namely, to serve these notices on Christmas Day or a Good Friday? The Amendment has made no provision for this point.

Mr. Woodburn: If I may reply with the leave of the House, this is an extra advantage for Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 167, line 33, to leave out paragraph 2, and to insert:
2. In the case of a candidate who is outside the United Kingdom, a notice of withdrawal signed by his proposer and accompanied by a written declaration also so signed of the candidate's absence from the United Kingdom shall be of the same effect for the purpose of paragraph 7 of Part I of the local elections rules as a notice of withdrawal signed by the candidate:
Provided that where the candidate stands nominated by more than one nomination paper a notice of withdrawal under this paragraph shall be effective if, but only if,—

(a)it and the accompanying declaration are signed by all the proposers except any who is, and is stated in the said declaration to be, outside the United Kingdom; or
(b)it is accompanied, in addition to the said declaration, by a written statement

signed by the candidate that the proposer giving the notice is authorised to do so on the candidate's behalf during his absence from the United Kingdom."

This Amendment applies to local government elections the same provision relating to the withdrawal of a candidate who is abroad as the House has already approved for Parliamentary elections.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 168, line 20, at the beginning to insert:
(1) In paragraph 16 of Part III of the local elections rules for England and Wales (which enables two electors to require the questions there set out to be put to an applicant for a ballot paper) the reference to two electors shall cease to have effect.
In Committee words were left out enabling two electors to require a presiding officer to put the statutory questions to a person applying for a ballot paper. The purpose of this Amendment is to put local government elections on the same footing in this respect as Parliamentary elections.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page line 23, at the end to insert:
and any reference in the said paragraph 17 to a polling agent shall include a reference to a candidate or his election agent.
This Amendment also has the effect of putting local government elections on the same footing as Parliamentary elections.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 169 line 6, at end, insert:
(2) For the purposes of the said paragraph 33, the concurrence of a candidate or his election agent shall be as effective as that of his counting agents:
Provided that where at an election in a metropolitan borough counting agents have been appointed to attend an behalf of more than one candidate jointly the concurrence of those agents shall be required unless each of those candidates or his election agent concurs."—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 169, line 16, at the end, to insert:
(4) The provisions of section two hundred and ninety-five of the local elections Act and, in England and Wales, paragraph 12 of Part I of the local elections rules (which provide for excluding Sundays and other days therein mentioned) shall not apply in relation to the counting of the votes and the other proceedings of the returning officer after the close of the poll or to things done by other persons in the course of those proceedings,


but the returning officer shall not be obliged to proceed with the counting on any day to which those provisions apply.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the returning officer may at his discretion continue the counting of votes into a Sunday or a holiday, which are days which may otherwise be disregarded for other purposes under the Bill. He is, of course, under no compulsion to do so, but it would enable him to complete the count in those circumstances.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 170, line 31, after "if" to insert:

"(i) in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 1 and sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3, for the expression "Mayor," there were substituted the expression "town clerk";
(ii) for references to the proposer and to the seconder of a candidate there were respectively substituted references to the proposer whose name appears first and to the proposer whose name appears second on a nomination paper in respect of the candidate; and
(iii)."

In Scotland the town clerk and not the returning officer deals with matters in this part of the Bill, and, therefore, this Amendment seeks to substitute the town clerk for the mayor. The second part of the Amendment refers to the question of the proposer and seconder. The expressions "proposer" and "seconder" are not used in Scotland, and in this case it will be necessary to refer to the first and second proposers.

Amendment agreed to.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Supplemental provisions as to use for Election Meetings of Rooms in School Premises and of Meeting Room.)

10.45 p.m.

Amendment made: In page 171, line 5, leave out from beginning, to "with."—[Mr. Ede.]

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Effect of Change of Date of Local Government Elections in England and Wales.)

Amendment made: In page 174, line 20, leave out "section," and insert "paragraph."—[Mr. Younger.]

SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Consequential and Minor Amendments as to Local Government in Scotland.)

Amendment made: In page 174, line 29, column 2, after "words," insert "the."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions which may be contained in Regulations as to Registration, etc.)

Amendments made: In page 176, leave out lines 40 and 41, and insert:
service declaration having ceased to be in force.

In page 177, line 11, after "officer," insert:
mayor or person acting as mayor."—[Mr. Younger.]

TENTH SCHEDULE.—(Adaptation and Interpretation of Enactments, etc.)

Amendments made: In page 181, line 14, after "authority," insert:
and any such contribution shall be paid in the like manner.

In page 182, line 18, at end, insert:
(3) In England and Wales, in section two hundred and ninety-five of the local elections Act (which relates to the computation of time for the purposes of that Act) any reference to that Act shall be construed as including a reference to Part IV of this Act.

In line 36, leave out from second "for," to end of line 38, and insert:
the words 'City of London' where they first occur there shall be substituted the words 'a constituency where the sheriffs of the City of London or either of them are or is returning officer.'

In line 38, at end, insert:
(4) A notice given (whether before or after the passing of this Act) for the purposes of the proviso to subsection (1) of the said section twenty-seven (which enables a sheriff, mayor or other officer who is returning officer to require the writ to be conveyed to the acting returning officer) shall have effect in relation to all constituencies of which the person giving it is or was returning officer at the time of giving it or of which he or a successor in office becomes returning officer by virtue of that office.

In line 38, at end, insert:
3. So much of section five of the local Act of the twelth and thirteenth years of Queen Victoria, chapter ninety-four, as requires registration as a Parliamentary elector as part of the qualification under that section for election to the common council of the City of London shall cease to have effect."—[Mr. Younger.]

TWELFTH SCHEDULE.—(References in Corrupt Practices Act and Local Elections Act.)

Amendment made: In page 187, line 15, 187 at end, insert:
Section 295. Section 197 Section 366."—[Mr. Younger.]

THIRTEENTH SCHEDULE.—(Repeals.)


Amendments made: In page 189, line 41, at end, insert:


"12 &amp; 13 Vict., c. xciv
An Act to amend an Act passed in the eleventh year of the reign of King George the First for regulating elections within the City of London and for preserving the peace, good order, and government of the said City.
In section five the words from "and who" to the words "in respect to such premises" where they last occur."

In page 192, line 18, column 3, after "read," insert:
and in the directions as to printing the ballot paper the words from 'The surname' to the last 'and'.

In line 45, column 3, leave out "Section sixteen," and insert:
in section sixteen the words 'cockades, ribbons, or other marks of distinction'.

In page 193, line 43, column 3, leave out "Section twelve," and insert:
in section twelve the words 'cockades, ribbons, or other marks of distinction'.

In page 194, line 41, column 3, leave out "Section sixteen," and insert:
in section sixteen the words 'cockades, ribbons or other marks of distinction'.

In page 196, line 46, column 3, after "14,"insert:
in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 16 the words ' by two local government electors or'.

In page 197, line 15, column 3, at end, insert:
and in the directions as to printing the ballot paper the words from 'The surname' to the last 'and'.

In line 56, column 3, after "14," insert:
in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 16 the words 'by two electors or'.

In page 198, line 28, column 3, after "Form D," insert:
and in the directions as to printing the ballot paper the words from 'The surname' to the last 'and'."—[Mr. Younger.]

In page 199, line 56, column 3, after "Schedule," insert "paragraph 3 and."

In page 200, line 22, column 3, at end, insert:
and in the directions as to printing the ballot paper the words from 'The surname,' to the last 'and'."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

Orders of the Day — NAVAL OFFICERS (BONUS PAYMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

10.52 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: During the Debate on the Navy Estimates I raised a question about the payment of the 25 per cent. bonus to certain officers on the emergency lists—those officers who were on that list before 31st October, 1930, and who were subsequently promoted after being called up to the rank of commander or captain. My case rests on the regulations which were issued from time to time by the Admiralty, and the Admiralty case rests, as I understand it, on their power to alter the conditions of service without notice and without recognition of vested interest as and when they please. I must quote the regulations in support of my case. In July, 1911, the regulations stated:
When called up for active service officers on this list will receive full pay of their rank. On discharge after being called up they will be granted a bonus of 25 per cent. (exclusive of allowances) earned during their employment.
In January, 1913, the regulations stated:
Officers promoted after they have been placed on the emergency list will receive the rate of full pay of the higher rank.
In April, 1916, the regulations stated:
Emergency officers in time of war may be promoted irrespective of the regulations governing the promotion of officers on the active list.
In April, 1918, the regulations stated:
If called up for active service officers on this list, if promoted and subsequently to being placed on the emergency list, receive the full rate of pay of the higher rank. They will also be granted a bonus of 25 per cent. on the lull pay (exclusive of allowances) earned during their employment.
It is on these regulations that I base my case. It is quite clear from them that the Admiralty recognised that these officers might be promoted to the rank of commander or captain. No officer in the Service, whether on the active list or on


the emergency list, has any prescripted right to be promoted as a matter of course. All promotion to commander or captain is at the discretion of the Admiralty. It is clearly laid down in these regulations that officers may be promoted, and that if they are promoted they will receive the full pay of their rank, plus a bonus of 25 per cent. In 1927 these regulations were altered, and the 25 per cent. bonus was done away with, notwithstanding the conditions under which the officers had previously joined the emergency list. It was brought to my notice in 1942 that officers were not receiving this 25 per cent. bonus in accordance with the regulations under which they joined the emergency list. I took this matter up with the right hon. Gentleman who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, and is now Minister of Defence. I give him full credit for what he did—he instituted the necessary proceedings whereby those officers up to the rank of lieutenant-commander should receive the 25 per cent. pension, but in the case of officers promoted to the rank of captain or commander that was not done notwithstanding the regulation which I have read out.
The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to me on the Naval Estimates was entirely unsatisfactory. I have had correspondence with him since, and because it also has been unsatisfactory, I am raising this matter tonight. The Parliamentary Secretary told me that after the outbreak of war in 1939 it was decided that the 25 per cent. bonus should only be paid to the emergency officers up to the rank of lieutenant-commander and not to those promoted to captain or commander after being called up. That, I am told by the Parliamentary Secretary was promulgated in February, 1942. He further stated in his letters written to me in February and March, 1948, that as the original contract did not bind the Admiralty to promote these officers to either the rank of captain or commander, they are regarded as coming on to new contracts unless promoted to one of these ranks after being called out, the date of such promotion being an appropriate moment to vary their conditions of service, i.e., to cease paying the 25 per cent. bonus on full pay. That is entirely contrary to the 1918 regulations.
The Parliamentary Secretary informed me—though he had no need to do so;

it was quite unnecessary—that the Admiralty had the power to alter the conditions of service without notice and without recognition of vested rights. It could well be that such alteration might be to the detriment of the officers concerned as in this case. The Admiralty have used these powers in such a manner that these officers who expected to get this 25 per cent. bonus are not to get it because of the changed conditions. Is it any wonder that these officers consider that the Admiralty are not fulfilling their contract and that they are being unjustly treated? They have a real grievance in this matter. It shakes the confidence of the personnel of the Royal Navy in the integrity of a contract with the Admiralty. There is no question about it but this is bound to do a great deal of harm.
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is a good trade unionist, but I am. I am entirely in favour of trades unionism where the procedure laid for trade unionists is carried out correctly. I presume those, too, are the sentiments of the Parliamentary Secretary. Would the Parliamentary Secretary support a private employer who had a contract with his employees and who deliberately broke it? Certainly not. The hon. Gentleman I am sure would advise the employees to strike against the rascally employers who took such action. He would condemn such action at once. Yet that is exactly what the Admiralty has done. I submit that the Admiralty should set an example as good employers; but they certainly have not done so in this case. With these arbitrary powers, the Admiralty should be particularly careful how they use them. They should not use them to the detriment of the personnel of His Majesty's Navy, and I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he will have this matter gone into again, in order that there may be an adjustment and that justice may be done to those officers who were subsequently promoted to the rank of commander or captain. He will then remove a real sense of grievance on their behalf.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I support the case which has been raised tonight by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) a case which


he has argued so often and so well. It is a question of great importance to a relatively small number of extremely gallant officers. We should remember that in this debate we are dealing with officers who retired prior to 1930, so that their age at the end of the war could not have been much less than 60 years. They suffered all the rigours of active service at sea, and must have found it a good deal harder than men of their age in the other Services. They returned expecting to receive rates of pay, including the 25 per cent. bonus, oblivious of the fact that the bonus had been abolished. Owing to his activity in 1942 my hon. and gallant Friend was able to get the Admiralty to restore the bonus to them and, furthermore, the promotion to the rank of lieut.-commander still carried this bonus. But to those who, by exceptional merit, received no automatic promotion, but promotion by selection to the rank of commander and captain and consequently proved themselves of outstanding value to their country, this bonus has been denied.
Surely, the basis for withholding the bonus is indeed a flimsy one; it is a niggardly act. If automatic promotion to a relatively junior rank justified generous treatment, surely those, who by exceptional service, reached greater heights deserve more of this country which they served so well. The Admiralty may have the letter of the law on their side, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will show a more conciliatory spirit tonight and grant to these few this sum which is infinitesimal when compared to the vast millions spent by this Government today but which will give great relief to these officers whose retired pay bears so little comparison to the cost of living today. I hope he will consider sympathetically the request which has been made, not to close this question but to re-open it and reconsider it as a result of this Debate tonight.

11.4 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) should have joined in this Debate because he occupied part of the office I now hold. It was only a part,

and the other half was shared by his noble Friend in another place, but during the time he was there this reform for which he has argued so cogently this evening was not brought into operation. He is doing his duty well in supporting his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), but—

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I did not get to the Admiralty until late in 1943, and the question was tackled in the early months of that year.

Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Gentleman has managed to secure for himself some sort of alibi. I will now turn to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Paddington. He says he is a good trade unionist. I think from the speech we have just heard he is a good trade union leader manquč, and he would have made a good impression standing on the tribune at the Trades Union Congress. Perhaps we shall see him in due course at the Labour Party Conference, and that his eloquence will be as great there as it is here.
The Admiralty, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, consider that such promotion, that is promotion to the rank of commander or captain, is not a right but is something which may be given or withdrawn at the discretion of the Admiralty. In 1941 the Admiralty issued a new Admiralty Fleet Order, and I think for the purposes of the record I had better read what the Admiralty Fleet Order said. It stated:
The regulations governing the payment of 25 per cent. bonus to Emergency List Officers placed on the Emergency List up to 31st October, 1930, have been revised as follows:
Officers placed on the list before the above date will be paid 25 per cent. bonus on full pay retrospectively to the date of being called out for service, including those who have been or may in future be promoted to the substantive or acting rank of Lieutenant-Commander and relative ranks.
It then went on with this sentence—
As no officer on the Emergency List had a prescriptive right to promotion to Commander, the bonus will not be payable to officers who have been or may be exceptionally promoted since being called out to the active substantive ranks of Commander and Captain (and relative ranks) after the date of such promotion. They may, however, retain the pay of the lower rank plus 25 per cent. if to their advantage

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point will he explain why the Admiralty in the 1918 regulations never said anything about the prescriptive right but said these officers would receive the full pay of the rank plus a 25 per cent. bonus.

Mr. Dugdale: I was stating that the Admiralty held a certain view, namely, that they had no prescriptive right. After representations from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Admiralty changed its attitude. I only want to say one thing in conclusion. Having changed its attitude and brought out the Admiralty Fleet Order to which I have referred, the then First Lord of the Admiralty, now my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence, wrote to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to explain what had been done. He explained in detail the Admiralty Fleet Order, including the second sentence which definitely stated that this class of officer would not get the bonus. He received from the hon. and gallant Gentleman a letter in which he wrote:
I am very grateful for your courtesy in letting me know about the Emergency List Officers pay, and I am so glad the Admiralty have put that matter right.
In spite of the fact that my right hon. Friend's communication included the second sentence that certain officers would not benefit from the change that had been made, nevertheless the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the matter had been put right. Having said that, I can only suggest that he must have changed his mind since. The Admiralty have not changed their minds, and the matter must rest as it is, greatly as I sympathise with his persistence in raising this case constantly as he does. The fact is that when he was given this concession originally he agreed with it, he told my right hon. Friend that he did so, and I can only say that as he agreed with it then he must agree with it now, and that the Admiralty will maintain their position.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I would only like to say that when I read that letter—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. and gallant Member has exhausted his right to speak.

11.11 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: There is an aspect of this matter which has not yet been dealt with. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty how this matter stands in comparison with the other two Services. My recollection is that in the Army the retired officers in a similar position continued to get the increment notwithstanding the fact of promotion. I am not certain of that, but I have no doubt the position in regard to all three Services has been carefully considered. The House should be informed whether action in regard to all three Services has been the same. Clearly, if the Army officers who came back and were promoted got the 25 per cent. increment, whereas naval officers did not, there must have been injustice. Perhaps the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary will say—I am sure the House will give him leave—that he has looked into the position as regards the other Services, and that they are all treated alike—or, if not, why not, and that he will consider the matter.

Mr. Dugdale: There are many matters in which all three Services have different regulations. It is only now that a large number of regulations are being brought into line, and the fact that a regulation may or may not exist in another Service is no proof that it should exist in the Navy. They have different regulations in many respects, not only in this one.

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.